| 1 |
On Sat, May 10, 2008 3:58 pm, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote: |
| 2 |
> forgottenwizard wrote: |
| 3 |
> Realtime Linux Anti-Trojan signature scanning overhead is simply cheap |
| 4 |
> (almost free) insurance IMHO, and may be most important when compiling |
| 5 |
> and installing new or updated sourcecode. Or installing a new plugin to |
| 6 |
> your browser; or opening a media file. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> But I sure acknowledge the majority opinion - almost ALL Linux users, |
| 9 |
> and many Windows users as well, choose not to run real-time |
| 10 |
> AntiMalware scanners. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Actually, they are not "cheap" and certainly are not "almost free". Real |
| 13 |
time scanning is a nice way to bring even high-spec systems to their |
| 14 |
knees. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The reality is that an intelligent user doesn't really need the services |
| 17 |
they offer, and certainly doesn't need it at the performance cost it |
| 18 |
carries. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I expect my operating system to be sufficiently secure (Linux is) that |
| 21 |
such threats are minimal, if I'm buying high-spec hardware, I want to be |
| 22 |
the one using it, not some silly real-time-scanner package. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And yes, it is possible to lockdown Windows as tightly as a Linux box, you |
| 25 |
just need to know what you are doing. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
RobbieAB |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
<RobbieAB> Actually, I kinda like the thought of useing CGI to do my |
| 31 |
project in Fortran |
| 32 |
<bonsaikitten> that's quite sane |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives