pete

Doesn't Linux need an anti-virus and anti-spyware.
Or is it by some miracle immune?

peter köhlmann¥ë^®j†yšž{hžx§y×

No. But *much* harder to own than windows
--
We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.

ac

Its infertile environment for viruses is not by any means a miracle.
It is the result of very deliberate efforts of developers who wanted
better security at the initial expense of user (apparent)
inconvenience (note 1) and the continuing efforts of every user who
soon finds it is both unnecessary and unwise to run while logged in as
admin.

The very few viruses that there are for linux have a really hard time
spreading, partly for the reasons above.

Note 1:
Inconvenience is relative. I find the thousands of windows viruses
actively in the wild inconvenient to such an extent that I do not use
windows. The inconvenience of following a few simple formalities when
installing programs in linux- is not inconvenient for me at all.
hth
--
ac

joe lavigne

No miracle at all. There are no spyware apps, and very few virii have
been written for Linux, those that have are pretty harmless, since they
don't have root access.

colin wilson

Further to the other answers, while some core components are similar,
the variety of software available to do other tasks varies significantly
- so a virus that might try to exploit a hole in an email app for
example, might find that only a tiny percentage of machines out there
actually use the same software and might be vulnerable to it.

cory albrecht

No, it's just that Linux (and *BSD) make up such a small fraction of
desktop & basic user machines that's it's not worth the time of virus
writers (spam kings, nutty ****age boys trying to get revenge on the
work for not giving them a girlfriend, etc...) to write uni*x-based
viri. So the big part of why is basically economics, superior security
notwithstanding. Same reason as why there aren't as many Mac viri as
well. Were Linux 50% of the market then you can bet there's be a heck of
a lot more viri.

maxx

Read this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

This will clarify the misconception 'that Linux (and *BSD) make up such a
small fraction of desktop & basic user machines that's it's not worth the
time of virus writers (spam kings, nutty ****age boys trying to get
revenge on the work for not giving them a girlfriend, etc...) to write
uni*x-based viri.'

Basically it boils down to 'monoculture'...

--
gr,
maxx
:wq!

eulchen

nutty ****age boys hmhm - actually its a sony .....

dan n

Not true at all. Linux is more secure by design. Unix, the predecessor
of Linux, was designed from the very beginning to be a secure, multi-user
platform, before Gates had even dreamt of ms-dos. For Windows, security
was tacked on afterward by necessity.

Linux, secure as part of the core design. Windows, security added on top
as a matter of necessity.

Dan

josiah jenkins

Whilst perusing Usenet on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:15:06 +0100, I read
these words from maxx <no_mail@for_me.invalid> :

Basically it boils down to 'having a clue' !

"Linux user would have to read the email, save
the attachment, give the attachment executable
permissions, and then run the executable."

Been doing that with Forte Agent under Win
for the last ten years !

It's a perfectly straightforward job to keep
a Win machine free of virii/viruses but the
vast majority of users don't know how to.

It's a different user base from Linux.

-- jjj