On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:27 +0100, Sander Vesik wrote: > --- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In practice I have never inadvertently installed a virus even though I > > get a lot of mail including quite a lot of spam. I have on occasion > > deleted a good mail I shouldn't have. It seems pretty obvious from the > > sources which is good and which is probably bad. If in doubt I check it > > out. On linux the default is generally to make you put in the root > > password before doing anything that might be remotely dangerous. It can > > be a slight irritation at times but on balance that is probably a price > > worth paying to have a virus free machine and not have to shell out on > > anti-virus software. > > > > The problem is that this is fundamentaly untrue. You mean its fundamentally untrue that I have never inadvertently installed a virus? I can assure you it isn't. You mean its fundamentally untrue that I have to put in the root password before doing potentially dangerous operations eg installing something that could be a virus? I assure you it isn't. You mean I don't have a virus free Ubuntu system without any anti-virus software? I assure it isn't. My XP laptop connected to the same broadband internet is also virus free but protected by anti-virus software which I do not have the confidence to remove to see how long it will last without getting infected and while I am careful with E-mail attachments it would be relatively easier to install a virus on my XP machine than on my Linux one. > By the way, all that is needed to > get to that root password you are typing is being able to execute code... say > via > some remotely exploitable hole. Then I assume there aren't any of any significance in the distros I'm using because it practise its never happened in over 4 years of continuous use. I never said anything above about being perfectly secure. I said the system of having to supply a password before potentially dangerous operations is better than not having to do it even though it is at time a little inconvenient. > There is no security if there is a remotely explotable bug ... I agree there is no such thing as absolute certainty in anything. There are some things though that are significantly better than others. I don't believe in perfection, I believe in situation a being better than situation b. Acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk. All the empirical evidence is that the Ubuntu system I am running here and Mandrake before that are significantly more secure than any of the Windows systems I have dealt with. Forget complex technical reasons, its simply a matter of fact based on running two systems in a like for like environment for several years. Oh yes there are more Windows machines out there but there are more Linux machines than Acorn machines and there were far more Acorn viruses and in common with Windows these machines allowed ordinary users to install programs. So I would conclude that having to supply a root password to install software (also the fact that most software updates come directly from a known maintained repository) contributes to the fact that my Linux box is a lot less vulnerable to viruses than my Windows machine. Not perfect, better. If there is a different reason as a user, I don't really care. The outcome is what is important. Legacy probably has a good deal to do with it but then Unix in general has a longer legacy than Windows. Bottom line is that I don't currently expend any resources on anti-virus software or software licenses on my Linux system and it does what I need it to do and even on my Windows systems I have never inadvertently installed a virus from an E-mail attachment. If that situation changes I'll let you know. Ian -- www.theINGOTS.org www.schoolforge.org.uk www.opendocumentfellowship.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
