Jim Hyslop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
definitely ;) > not totally secure - nothing made by humans could be. So, do you mean unfortunately :( > 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? Windows viruses just don't work under Linux, the same as Windows programs don't work under Linux. There are very few Linux viruses (mostly lab experiments) and they are unlikely to spread due to the better design of Linux. There are threats to Linux computers (as Ron explained in more detail), but Symantec AFAIK does not provide software to deal with them. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
