N
Nick FitzGerald
kurt wismer said:then you obviously don't understand the virus problem... if they did
what you described it would not eliminate the virus threat, only reduce
it (and to what degree is unknown)...
Indeed.
"Geese_Hunter" would appear to be a typical *nix bigot with little grasp
on what makes viruses tick and no knowledge of the platforms on which the
first successful (and, arguably, only "scientific") virus experiments
were performed.
the existence of viruses does not depend on vulnerabilities or lax
default settings, viruses are a feature of *all* general purpose
computing platforms, regardless of which operating system is used, what
vulnerabilities are available, or how secure the defaults are...
so long as we use general purpose computers we will have to deal with
the threat of viruses...
Yep.
Thus, if MS were actually to get into the AV market pushing a product
based on such a flawed technology as known virus scanning they would be
doing a greater disservice than either keeping out of said market (and
retaining the "it's not our problem what code you choose to run on your
computer" moral high-ground) or trying some alternative approach (that
may establish an even higher moral ground for them -- and no, I don't
mean all that pie-in-the-sky, "getting into bed with the RIAA and MPAA"
NGTCB crap either...).
i trust then you'll come back here and ask us what the best anti-virus
for linux is...
Nope -- he's probably gormless enough to believe the "*nix is virus proof"
crap so beloved by folk of his ilk...