Jim Hyslop wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> There's [...] no need for Symantec anti-virus >> products. > > I'm curious why you say that. I'm fairly new to Linux, but I understand > it is more robust and secure than MS Windows. Still, it's not totally > secure - nothing made by humans could be. So, do you mean that there's > no need for Symantec because of the freely available alternatives, or > because Linux just doesn't need anti-virus protection, or something else > altogether?
Linux is not 100% secure. But it has a different attitude to security and to viruses. If a virus hits a windows box, it is a personal mishap, but one can buy a special software to detect and delete the virus. If a virus hits a linux box (it rarely happens), it is considered a security hole. The developers analyse the path the virus got in, fix it and neither that nor any virus of similar kind will be able to spread again. This is a simplification, of course, but I hope you get the point. Johannes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
