Sorry, all, my initial empassioned entry into the Linux vs. Windows email debate had a few typos... Here's an edited version.
Hi Jeremy, I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I must say that Linux isn't like Windows for a number of very important reasons. Very few of the reasons are technical - nearly all are philosophical, and they're the same reasons that I don't use Windows, and haven't since 1994. Linux is not ever likely to have email viruses like Windows/Outlook - regardless of its marketshare - for 4 fundamental reasons: 1. Design: a proper multiuser architecture like that employed by UNIX and Linux creates a "sandbox" for each user. As long as a user doesn't read/execute a hypothetical email virus as root, it's unlikely to affect more than their individual account at the very worst. If they do read mail as root, then they're sadly naive and probably should to get virus to teach them a lesson in prudence. Windows is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. There is *no* security by default, no proper permissions, no nothin'. 2. Diversity: there is no email client monoculture on Linux like there is on Windows. There are many very capable email clients, none of which has unfair advantage over another (as Outlook does by virtue of being preinstalled and set as default mail client on EVERY Windows desktop). Therefore there's no clear vector for transferring an email virus. All Windows machines of any given flavour (Win95/98/NT/2000/XP/CE) are identical, with all the same files in the same places by default. A Windows virus doesn't have to be very smart because it doesn't have to look very hard to find the vulnerable parts of the system. That's the definition of a monoculture. In nature, they don't last long for good reason: they're weak. 3. Default settings: Linux, is configured with everything potentially dangerous turned off by default (or specifically asks you if it should turn things on). Windows, on the other hand, is designed to maximise MS's income. That means pleasing the majority, which has always meant pleasing the lowest common denominator - the naive and minimally skilled. It also means keeping the anti-virus manufactures in business - ever wonder to what degree MS is invested in Symantec or Norton? Isn't it ironic that some of the foremost companies in computing are blindingly successful simply because the fix something in another company's software that shouldn't have been broken? <rant>There has never (perhaps until now with the ascent of Linux) been ANY financial incentive for MS to create a secure or stable Windows. They (with "upgrades") and their "partners", OEMs, and legions of support technicians the world over employed, earn $billions for fixing the same, known problems time and time again. To me, it makes obvious business sense that they drop those crumbs to keep the scavengers in their IT "ecosystem" well fed and eager to shout their praises. Sort of like how a great white shark tolerates a remora that eats its unwanted parasites - unless, of course, the shark feels like a light snack...</rant> 4. Goodwill: when a clever (or even not-so-clever) programmer wants to make his/her mark in the Linux world, there are many creative, positive ways in which s/he can make a splash creatively. Most contribute to an open source project - everyone knows that, given a choice, it feels much better to build something than it does to destroy something. Linux promotes an ethos of goodwill due to its openness and inclusiveness. It would be uncool in just about anybody's book do something destructive to anything that is the result of so many people's generosity. With Windows, no such good will exists, and the only real way to have an impact is by being destructive. In my opinion, the mercenary ethos projected by MS brings out frustration and destructiveness in people. Dave On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 11:51, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote: > Okay, so maybe I should've said... wow! are there new advancements in other >operating systems that make them impervious to viruses? > > Granted Outlook opens up a whole bunch of issues, but _My_ point was that theres no >point knocking micro$oft when you can be in the same boat no matter what OS you're >using, it's the popularity that makes it more likely to be hit. > > jeremyb > > http://www.jeremyb.net > > > From: Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2002/03/11 Mon AM 09:21:57 GMT+12:00 > > To: Jeremy Bertenshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Johnno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Re: Mail Virus Scanners > > > > On Monday 11 March 2002 09:41 am, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote: > > > Wow! Is there some new advancement in linux that makes it impervious to > > > viruses? > > > > No. As distrubuted by the major vendors Linux is not particularly secure, > > but getting rid of Microsoft will get rid of all the Outlook problems and > > other viruses which depend on there being no effective permission structure > > in the file system. It's just that in any mono-culture the whole population > > is prone to infection. > > > > Next time, read my posts carefully and note that I never mentioned Linux, and > > remember that that there are several operating systems which are "not > > Microsoft" and are perfectly capable of doing all the things that most people > > need to do. > > > > > > From: Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: 2002/03/10 Sun PM 10:23:21 GMT+12:00 > > > > To: Johnno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Mail Virus Scanners > > > > > > > > Belt & braces is a good idea, but tell them that if they really want to > > > > get rid of viruses they need to get rid of Microsoft. > > > > -- ** David Lane, Director - Egressive Limited * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ** PO Box 24162, Christchurch, NZ * www.egressive.com * 025 229 8147 ** ** Open Source: software for the discerning palate * www.openz.org **
