| 1 |
On Jul 12, 2013 4:32 PM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Am 12.07.2013 18:36, schrieb Timur Aydin: |
| 5 |
> > On 7/5/2013 11:12 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I |
| 7 |
> >> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too. Anyway, has |
| 8 |
> >> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to |
| 9 |
> >> be? I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are |
| 10 |
> >> windoze only. Is there a indisputable source of information on this? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, but it isn't so much |
| 13 |
> > more secure that only 1% of all viruses can attack it. Virus |
| 14 |
> > developers don't have a financial incentive to develop Linux viruses |
| 15 |
> > (not enough Linux users, most Linux users knowledgeable about |
| 16 |
> > computers, and moral reasons). |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> moral reasons... you just made my day.... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yeah, that made me think back to a reddit AMA with a guy who ran a botnet |
| 22 |
and everyone kept asking him about morals. |
Archives