Robert,
I apologize for myself and others if our replies seemed flip. You have
to realize, though, that it's a "linux" related list, and so naturally
people assume that at least you have weighed the merits of Linux as
an operating system.
However, in your annoyance, don't miss that the respondents addressed
your question. That is, while it is theoretically possible to infect a
Linux machine, either it has never happened in practice or is so rare
as to be negligible. When Linux rules the world as Microsoft now does,
virus inventers will be drawn to it, and then perhaps the shoe will be
on the other foot.
It is my impression that, given the rapidity with which new viruses
appear and spread, it is really impossible to protect oneself fully by
installing a shield based on virus signatures: you are in principle
always one step behind. There are also the macro viruses and the
intrinsic fallability of Microsoft's integration of mail, Word,
etc. So, even after spending a not-insignificant sum on virus
protection software, you still run some danger. Of course, there are
wise policies (daily automatic backups, avoid executable attachments,
etc.)
How, I hope this reply is not at all flip, and I also hope you
appreciate that it's based on facts (given the limits of my
knowledge), not religion. Linux today is generally recognized to be a
small but viable alternative to Microsoft (IBM's endorsement, etc.),
and, like any operating system, has its own strengths and
weaknesses. If viruses greatly concern you, this would seem a reason
to give Linux at least some consideration. Why take offense at the
recommendation?
Haines
