William Kenworthy wrote: > On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote: >> I had a interesting adventure the other day. A friend of mine's son is >> getting ready to go to college. Budget is tight so we went to find a >> used laptop for him. I went into the local puter shop and the techie >> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not >> recommending them for computer service to anyone else. While we was >> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as >> windoze and so is a Mac. I think my laughing let him know I wasn't >> buying his comment. >> >> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I >> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too. Anyway, has >> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to >> be? I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are >> windoze only. Is there a indisputable source of information on this? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) >> > food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up > that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in > use. Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ... > > I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than > self starting. > > BillK > > >
Well, no Wine here. So that won't happen. Actually, I don't have a copy of windoze here at all. Neither of my two rigs have ever had windoze installed on them at all. BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in there. Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion that is human readable. They sent it and I'm nosy that way. lol I'm still trying to figure out what he thought he would accomplish tho. I can't get my head wrapped around that yet. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
