On 07/06/13 02:21, Dale wrote:
William Kenworthy wrote:
On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote:
I had a interesting adventure the other day. A friend of mine's son is
getting ready to go to college. Budget is tight so we went to find a
used laptop for him. I went into the local puter shop and the techie
guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
recommending them for computer service to anyone else. While we was
chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
windoze and so is a Mac. I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
buying his comment.
I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too. Anyway, has
anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
be? I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
windoze only. Is there a indisputable source of information on this?
Thanks.
Dale
:-) :-)
food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up
that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in
use. Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ...
I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than
self starting.
BillK
Well, no Wine here. So that won't happen. Actually, I don't have a
copy of windoze here at all. Neither of my two rigs have ever had
windoze installed on them at all.
BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
there. Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
that is human readable. They sent it and I'm nosy that way. lol
Perhaps it's easier to use strings?
--
Stop talking and start compiling.
Linux user #557897
