Linux uncrackable...?

[Tim]

On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 21:35 -0700, jdow wrote:
> I have a "thing" about people who say you don't need an AV or other
> defense with Linux, "It's safe." That's been a mantra of the know
> nothings for nearly 20 years now.

The thing is, that anti-virus is always after-the-fact.  The damage has
been done, and it's too late for those who were hit.  The Windows
mentality of heavily relying on anti-virus (and other anti-stuff),
rather than fixing the real problem, is a significant error.  It's a
poor solution.

Fortunately, the Linux camp has taken the attitude that if there's a
flaw in something, then fix it.  And if hundreds of other packages
suddenly stop working because you fixed Samba, or whatever else, then
that was their problem to fix their own errors.  Rather than let the
original error stay for the sake of everyone else's convenience.

I don't buy the argument that Linux has fared better in this malcontent
war because it is a small target.  To my mind, the more sensible system
design, and the repairing of mistakes, has a lot more to do with it.

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.