1 |
On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale 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 |
> Thanks. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Dale |
21 |
> |
22 |
> :-) :-) |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up |
26 |
that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in |
27 |
use. Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ... |
28 |
|
29 |
I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than |
30 |
self starting. |
31 |
|
32 |
BillK |