1 |
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I had a interesting adventure the other day. A friend of mine's son is |
4 |
> getting ready to go to college. Budget is tight so we went to find a |
5 |
> used laptop for him. I went into the local puter shop and the techie |
6 |
> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not |
7 |
> recommending them for computer service to anyone else. While we was |
8 |
> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as |
9 |
> windoze and so is a Mac. I think my laughing let him know I wasn't |
10 |
> buying his comment. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I |
13 |
> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too. Anyway, has |
14 |
> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to |
15 |
> be? I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are |
16 |
> windoze only. Is there a indisputable source of information on this? |
17 |
|
18 |
There have absolutely been viruses and various root exploits for Linux |
19 |
systems, but to say it is even 1% as many as Windows would probably be |
20 |
a massive overstatement. |
21 |
|
22 |
Not that Linux or Mac are necessarily inherently more secure than |
23 |
Windows, but Windows (and software that runs on Windows) is by far the |
24 |
biggest target for bad guys, and the most used by careless users. |
25 |
|
26 |
On any operating system, proper maintenance with regard to security |
27 |
updates, and smart behavior (don't run that EXE attachment the |
28 |
Nigerian prince just sent you) will keep you safe. For people who |
29 |
don't do that, Linux is typically set up more securely than Windows, |
30 |
by default... but the person sitting at the keyboard is usually |
31 |
capable of screwing it up more than any virus. :) |