BeerCheeze
Rated XXX
|
 Posted: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:06:56 Post Subject: |
 |
|
| Dud3! wrote: | I lose? I wasn't aware that this was a game...
I know there are a FEW viruses out there for Linux, but find out how many. I'd bet it's less than ten. Find out how many of those can do anything to the system as root. A properly set up user account can't write to anything other than /tmp and the files in it's own directory, so a virus wouldn't bring the system down as I stated.
If there is a virus/worm that can mess up the system and bring it totally down, I don't know about it. |
That one dates back to 2002... how many more are out there? I bet more than 10. And you can use the same argument for XP/2000. If the account doesn't have Admin access, a virus/worm can't do much damage to the system.
I also can't tell you how many times I've had to apply patches to my Linux server for.... OOOPS Bugs that allow an "attacker" to gain root access. As Linux get's bigger and bigger (and it will, and should) It will get more and more attacks/viruses/worms designed for it.
Also... your secinaro for using Linux as a desktop OS on at the business... ooooo bad bad bad... I know I was talking with someone who is a real IT person, who is also a Linux Nut (self admited) who switched to... Mac OS V becasue he had nothing but problems with opening doc's/presantions with... OO Yea... Open Office... 
| Quote: | Linux on the Desktop: The Whole Story
Linux on the Server vs. on the Desktop
Linux has had significant success on the server. Many servers are dedicated to running a single application; in many cases, it has been relatively easy for enterprises to replace specific servers, such as a Web server or network infrastructure server. Linux brings down the cost of the overall hardware acquisition, a proposition that, during times of economic woes, has become extremely attractive to IT managers seeking cost-saving solutions. Moreover, hardware vendors such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard have aggressively stood behind Linux, giving users the confidence that any technical support or maintenance issues will be addressed.
However, the environment for Linux on the desktop is significantly different. Knowledge workers use PCs to run diverse combinations of applications. For these users, migration costs will be very high, because all Windows applications must be replaced or rewritten.
As a result, migrating desktops to Linux only makes sense in a very narrow, limited range of situations. The Linux migration should be considered only if there are relatively few applications, and these applications are fixed-function or low-function, such as data entry, call center or bank teller/platform automation. In these cases, the cost of migration may be low enough to justify the move to Linux.
PC vendors have been less enthusiastic in rallying behind Linux on the desktop, preferring to leave it to customer choice for custom builds and supporting Linux on an ad hoc basis. PC vendors have also used Linux in sporadic sales campaigns to meet specific price targets. Overall, however, Linux support on the PC is the exception and not the rule, a challenge that an enterprise must consider when determining the future of its desktop OS.
- Gartner
|
As for a good article on this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
It's pretty fair, and I think it gives the blame where it truly belongs. (And yea... MS loses the virus battle... Duh) |
|
