vulnerability of Linux

[John Summerfied]

Rudolf Kastl wrote:

>>The likelihood of someone writing a single virus attacking more than one
>>(counting Mozilla ant tbird as one) _and_ getting it to spread is fairly
>>small.
>>
>>Years ago (I was using the then recent RHL 7.3) , Kaspersky released a
>>virus scanner client for Linux. I pressed them for a catalogue of known
>>Linux viruses. They came up with a list of five, some of which I'd
>>heard. At least one was a worm (doesn't spread in email), one was maybe
>>a problem in RHL 6.2.
>>
>>
>>
>>>- Have updated systems! update your system daily. Yum must program your
>>>yum or apt updates to run at least daily.
>>
>>That is plain stupidity. It is worse than securing your system sensibly
>>and applying _no_ updates.
> 
> 
> no its not. if thats your policy fine. it shouldnt be an end users
> policy though.
> 
Justify yourr assertion: I gave reasons for mine.
> 
>>If you blindly apply updates as they appear, you will get a broken
>>system, nothing surer.
> 
> 
> end users have no clue and thus cant select what they need. actually
> with only backported fixes nothing should break with tested updates.

If users want that kind of support they better pay for it. Fedora Core 3 
did in fact break just as I said, with USB not working, at least on 
certain laptops.



>

> 


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/

do not reply off-list