Re: So f'n sick of viruses from just surfing the web!

So, you're a spoiled child that doesn't accept that somebody tells you
you're wrong, a since you've allways run away from any of my statements,
that makes you a coward also

bye, and keep you stupid opinions to yourself next time


Em Quinta 16 Julho 2009 02:11, Tim Med*** escreveu:

Arame,
What on earth are you on about? (Or even; "What on earth are
you on?")

Trying to "chase" up on every point I make in my posts and then
"picking" at them.

I purposely made statements that were purely opinions but you still
"have a go" at them, point-by-point, when they were obviously just
that - opinions.

People's opinions are their own, it is pedantic and futile to treat
someone's opinions as if it they were facts that could possibly be
either right or wrong - they can't!

I'm sure you'll have a go at this reply also, well, be my guest..., but
you're on your own now....

==

Cheers, Tim Med***, Peckham, London. :-)




"ArameFarpado" <a-farpado.spam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h3gq93$ea2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Em Ter�a 14 Julho 2009 02:23, Tim Med*** escreveu:

My comments were obviously generalizations to an extent - and as such
I
stand by them.

Mac users were saying for some time, up until quite recently, how
there
OS was virtually free of viruses.
i'm not a mac user and i don't know any thing about macs...


It is a fact that only relatively recently have AV Software vendors
written Mac versions of their software.
so what? there are also linux versions of a lot of AVs, maybe they are
trying to grab a few more clients, but a linux/unix/solaris/bsd user
will
only install an AV if he is highly paranoic.

on other hand, if you have a samba server, you might wanna have a AV
trying
to keep it clear so that windows clients don't get infected using your
server. for that you'll need an AV ported to the system that holds the
samba
server.


When you talk about security issues surrounding servers, it's totally
different, as most viruses depend on interaction with the user for
access.
worms don't, and those are designed to exploit open ports and services
listening at those ports, like all servers have.

The discussion was really about safer browsing and malware and viral
attacks, not on the general vulnerability of computer systems to
hacking.
all things are connected, you do safer browsing with a safer OS. not
to
mention faster also...


All I was saying was it remains a fact that one is safer visiting
only
websites that one is 100% sure of .
what's the fun of that? it's like doing a google search but can't
click on
any of the results...



You then went on to comment "Aren't you forgetting that good OSs
can't
be infected?" .

To which I replied "There's no such thing as a totally secure OS.....
or were you being humorous?"

Since you then replied "dead serious" , I ask you what OS do you
think
is 100% secure?
i've put several non-windows systems in users the most dumber you can
imagine, they have adapt quickly to the diferent system and so far
none of
them was able to infect the system i've installed and configured. some
of
them are using linux for 5 years now. none of them have an AV
installed.


Quite frankly I think you are being pedantic, picking at opinions
I've
stated here - and pulling them out of context.
out of context? you're the one that sayd that windows is more targeted
because it's the most used... that's the opinion of most people but
they are
wrong.
it's easy to create malware for windows, while for other systems it's
almost
impossible... that fact is: the easier way to trash a non-windows
instalation with a virus is to create a virus that runs on windows and
delete any partition unknown to the windows system. that of course can
only
happen in a multi-boot system.


What is your point?
the same:
don't fight malware with anti-malware... it's useless.

the battle malware/anti-malware was won by malware long ago





.

Loading