Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus,linux malware

[Snit]

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/2/11 6:00 PM:

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/2/11 5:39 PM:

Snit wrote:
Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:


I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.

I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
easy a Windows user could do it.

That's kind of the point.

Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
as root.

Well, with most distros you are not running as root by default.

That's good, but you *should* be able to say "all" here instead of just
"most".

Well, for the ones which you do run as root they should make it clear. Do
any not?

You would just be contributing to the problem of decreasing the overall
IQ of the Linux userbase. Developers should strive to make things *more*
difficult so as to weed the garden so to speak.

Hmmm, not sure I agree.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.

So do I, and whilst they are very good at Graphics, none of them really
know the first thing about computers.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
money.

And isn't preparde unlike Dopez, to use a pirated version of Windows.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Big Steel stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/2/11 4:38 PM:


Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.

Doesnt that mean they end up having more money?

 

[Norman Peelman]

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:

No one I know wants to know anything about those items, let alone
manage them.

But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
....

 

[Snit]

David Brown stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/3/11 6:26 AM:

Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one. If you want
a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.

You can also buy one from the following companies:

Abaco Computers
Blackstone Systems
Codelock Computer
ComputadoresLinux
Dell
Eight Virtues
Emperor Linux
eRack
Evo Technologies
Fit-PC
Frostbite Systems
Genesi USA
HP
Inatux
LinPC
Linutop
Linux Certified
Linux Emporium
Linux-service.be
Los Alamos Computers
open-pc
System76
Think Penguin
Zareason
Zinside

And likely more.

People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.

The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
and many of its apps can be had for free. Of course this is a huge
"selling" point. It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
for the businesses and individuals I install it for.

In other words: I am a counter-example to the denial that it is not used to
save money. It is... I know because I use it for that purpose.

People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
similarly with other programs. And the lack of cost certainly makes it
easier to try out Linux. But Linux users have usually already paid for
a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).

I use it on many machines where I no longer have access to the license that
came with the machine. Or where the machine came without a Windows license.
I am hardly the only one.

 

[James Egan]

LOL, I have to disagree here

I'm sure he won't be losing any sleep over it, D.


Jim

 

[James Egan]

Kiss my ass Jungle Jim and crawl back to your hole, I am not going to
loose any sleep over it either.

I see you're still vying for usenet numpty of the year, D. Keep taking
the tablets


Jim

 

[Dustin]

No one I know wants to know anything about those items, let alone
manage them.

As long as that attitude remains as the primary, my job security is set
in stone. [g]

 

[Dustin]

Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
them, on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are
spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...

No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a
decent mac.

which implies the owners might have about the same amount of money
to be scammed out of. Or at least pretty close.

Ehh, no. Macs are by far more expensive.

The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.

LOL, not hardly. I confess tho, I do have the advantage here, insider
knowledge.

 

[Dustin]

No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
bother?

That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
windows, it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.

 

[Dustin]

And isn't preparde unlike Dopez, to use a pirated version of
Windows.

Pirated version? Please. It's not *that hard* to acquire a valid VLK
key. No pirate.

 

[Norman Peelman]

No one I know wants to know anything about those items, let alone
manage them.

As long as that attitude remains as the primary, my job security is set
in stone. [g]

As is mine as the local 'computer guy'.

 

[Dustin]

So do I, and whilst they are very good at Graphics, none of them
really know the first thing about computers.

Macs tend to have that dumbing down effect, yes. It's why people buy
them, I think. They don't want to know how it works, just that it does.

Bad for security, good for malware.

 

[Norman Peelman]

David Brown stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/3/11 6:26 AM:


You can also buy one from the following companies:

Abaco Computers
Blackstone Systems
Codelock Computer
ComputadoresLinux
Dell
Eight Virtues
Emperor Linux
eRack
Evo Technologies
Fit-PC
Frostbite Systems
Genesi USA
HP
Inatux
LinPC
Linutop
Linux Certified
Linux Emporium
Linux-service.be
Los Alamos Computers
open-pc
System76
Think Penguin
Zareason
Zinside

And likely more.


The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
and many of its apps can be had for free. Of course this is a huge
"selling" point. It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
for the businesses and individuals I install it for.

The real answer is that the software is *offered* for free.

 

[Peter Köhlmann]

Pirated version? Please. It's not *that hard* to acquire a valid VLK
key. No pirate.

Except that RayDopeAbuser was proud to tell us that he paid all of $5
somewhere in Asia.

You know, that same guy who tells us how he is selfmade millionaire,
programming with .NET

If you want someone dumber than RayLopez, look at some dirt. Should be dry
dirt, though. Bacteria raise the IQ of dirt way beyond RayLopez

 

[Peter Köhlmann]

That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
windows,

Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet

it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.

And that same old bullshit over and over again.

Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?

How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?

By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?

Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats
a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable

 

[FromTheRafters]

Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet


And that same old bullshit over and over again.

Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?

How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?

By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?

Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats
a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable

None of which has anything to do with his statement.

The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
ID stolen.

 

[Peter Köhlmann]

None of which has anything to do with his statement.

Oh, it certainly has

The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
ID stolen.

And how easy, you forgot to mention.
For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
servers. And linux servers represent 60% to >70% of servers (depending who
is doing the survey).
Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because you
get access to lots of desktop machines then

Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?

 

[Peter Köhlmann]

You can't reason with a COLA lunatic.


That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
any kind of Linux server period?
Idiot

Lets not forget now that you are a MS desktop COM programmer. And you
are using MS solutions to collect a paycheck.

Nope. I don't even program those thinsg on windows.
I compile them on windows. To get windows programs. Just as I compile them
on OSX. To have the very same programs for apple.
Programming is all done on linux, you cretinous dimbulb

Why can't you get a job or collect a paycheck as a Linux programmer?

I haven't "collected a paycheck" since about 20 years, Oh Really Stupid One.
I am selfemployed

Like I said, he's Peter the Great a total hypocrite.

Idiot