How about:
"That viruses 'don't affect Linux' is in the eye of the beholder, and can
be regarded in many cases as an outright lie"?
An outright lie in the cases of someone who refers to various worms that
affect Windows machines (eg, much of the stuff you've been hearing about
recently) as 'viruses' and then tells others that Linux doesn't get such
'viruses'. If viruses includes worms (and by popular definition, it does),
then Linux has many worms in the wild that attack it, such as ramen,
adore, etc.
The only truth of the matter is that Linux gets *many fewer* 'viruses'
because:
* New files created on a Unix system cannot be executable
* More secure defaults (more ports blocked off by default, default users
not having root privileges)
* A general culture of technical awareness amongst its users
* Its less popular than Windows (not a main reason, but this is true).
And prolly a few answers I can't think of.
People only do Linux a disservice when they know the difference between
viruses and worms, and know that the user is asking about both, yet refuse
to answer the question the user thinks they asked...
Mike
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Mike MacCana Consultant RHCX, MCSE, MCP+I
0419 394 504
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
