>if windows has a prob with its OS (cough *vista*) they are stuck with it...Linux can easily be
>changed or patched.
Completely wrong. Windows has security updates, just like most modern operating systems nowadays (both closed- and open-source).

>the OS itself is a good enough anti-virus/firewall/etc
Um, no. Any sufficiently-advanced operating system will be prone to viruses, Trojans, and other nasties. While Linux doesn't seem to be too bad in this respect, it could be attributed to the fact that it has a very small portion of the operating system market (and thus, virus writers wouldn't be targeting Linux). Finally, Linux does need a firewall to protect itself from hackers, like most operating systems. You seem to think that simply because the operating system is open source it's invulnerable to attack.

vista and linux are the same in terms of security. The only reason vista has a higjer incidence is because users are TOTAL RETARDS as they run as administrators, not limited accounts. UAC goes some way to fixing this. If everyone on linux operated as root then it would be just as virus prone

Linux has kernel packet filtering and 90% of distributions come with an iptables firewall

They're not neceseraly stuck with it. MS has thousands of people who work on just windows. And they all try to come up with solutions. Vista is a great operating system, and people should stop complaining about it. However, I prefer linux over windows for most day to day tasks. And linux security is not as big and a vulnerability with windows, because more people use it. The only reason linux doesn't need an antivirus is because not enough people use it(consumers), so there's not need to attack it.

>this pop up requires NO PASSWORD to be entered!!!

only if you are an administrator. you gotta use vista before you start ripping on it. i've been running vista on a laptop and have had no problems what so ever. and mac os x has the same security feature, if you do something that requires administrative priviliges it'll ask you for the password, same with linux, when installing something or changing a setting it'll prompt you for a password.

I've had the displeasure of using Vista and getting those infuriating pop-ups. And those pop-ups make absolutely no sense whatever. The pop-up requires no password if one is already an administrator. This means that Vista already knows whether or not one is an administrator. So why does it badger the user?

Only rarely does GNU/Linux ask for a password if the user does not have adequate privileges. Nearly always it will report an error message saying the user does not have the necessary privileges and then abort. And creating security-hostile GUIs that prompt the user for root password is almost the same as merrily skipping down the primrose path. After all, what's the visual difference between a legitimate package requesting privileges and malware doing the same? If I try to install software without adequate privileges, the install should FAIL. Period. If I really want to install it, I should be required to explicitly run a shell and explicitly acquire the necessary privileges. THEN I can execute the install. To do so otherwise will merely bring GNU/Linux right to the current state of security in Windows: little-to-none.

... Did you know that 60% of all SPAM in the world comes from infested user machines ( Yes, windows is #1 so that makes Windows the User Machine sending the SPAM )... once a trojan is infected the Windows User machine ( like XP, NT, 2000, Vista whatever ) SPAM is being mailed. ...

I think '60%' may be a bit of an overstatement.

I have *some* experience managing email and spam. In the past couple years, 80-90% of all email arriving at my few domains comes from IP addresses of *known spammers*; it doesn't come from hijacked PCs. 3-10% is legitimate email. The rest is found to be spam or fails other anti-spam measures. The sites I manage typically receive 600-1200 legitimate emails each month. The total incoming volume at each site has ranged from 10,000 to 35,000 each month. It spiked up last summer and tapered off to previous levels last fall. Apparently the FBI has done some good work in this regard: IC3.gov message . If y'all'd like, I can post the summary info.

And, to return to the thread's topic, GNU/Linux really *do* need anti-virus software. Because there are a great many Windows PCs that get their email from Linux servers, linux email system operators need a rock-solid anti-virus system. Clam is good, but it isn't quite good enough; it's slow and far too CPU-intensive. And I know of at least one http-downloadable virus/trojan that Clam doesn't/didn't see; that's one too many.

any thoughts on solairs??

just thought I would open the debate to unix!! ps i love vista think its a good o/s for everyday users and i love linux/unix too but you need to have a lot more knowledge then most everyday users have to make it work the way u want to.

i think unix has linux binary compatibility libaries (at least freebsd does, dont know about real unix (tm) ) , which would make it just as succeptible

i use solaris well at work anyway find it very stable but not sure how vulnerable it is.

oh and has anyone seen about these new firewire attacks that leave any system with any os vunerable to attack

yeah but the fact is that you need physical access

physical access makes any pc vulnerable

i think unix has linux binary compatibility libaries (at least freebsd does, dont know about real unix (tm) ) , which would make it just as succeptible

Yes, Solaris has the lxrun utility.

Most of the posts here are FUD.

Linux does have virii, the first was in 1995.

However because you do not have admin rights by default on linux (with the exception of one distribution) they have minimal effect - they cannot infect the system; possibly the local user might get stung but that's all they can do, they can't propogate, they can't access the system.

Its nothing to do with numbers of users, market share open vs closed source, its down to basic errors in Microsoft products.

Linux was largely developed over internet, Microsoft under-estimated the demand & effect of networking.

I do have antivirus installed, mainly so I don't pass Windows malware onto Windows users.

see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

"Opinion To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it, writes SecurityFocus columnist Scott Granneman."

exactly as i said

vista and linux are the same in terms of security. The only reason vista has a higjer incidence is because users are TOTAL RETARDS as they run as administrators, not limited accounts. UAC goes some way to fixing this. If everyone on linux operated as root then it would be just as virus prone

exactly as i said

So you did.

If at any time I inferred that you did not please accept my sincerest apologies.

My apology for going OT in this thread with my apology.

;) dont worry about it

Virus writers don't know where to start in *nix distros. Thats why they intend not to make such virus(es) like in windows OS's. Thats the best of being a *nix user.:D

a reason for linux no viruses and antivirus is the lack of bugs if compared with windows as an example and also the number of users is smaller if this number gets more i think we will find more holes and there might found viruses and antiviruses for it

NO it is because Windows is intrinsically less secure.

Belatedly, in Vista, they do not allow jeust anybody to install applications, either from the keyboard, or from an email attachment for example.

But then the dickheads go and make it easy to turn off.

I hate backseat moderating, but "dickheads" isn't a family friendly word.

And, no. Windows isn't less secure, people just don't know how to properly use the security. You won't get virii if you stay off of malicious websites, and don't sign up for stupid newsletters.

Again, if you stay as a limited account, and not as root, you'll be fine. On Windows -- stay limited, not as Administrator. I firmly believe that Windows should just abandon "UAC" and just require a password for every admin-run program.

Avast do a version of their home edition for Linux.

I hate backseat moderating, but "dickheads" isn't a family friendly word.

100% agree with you!