May's virus charts were a throwback to the end of 2005, with old favourites such as Netsky, Bagle, and Sober once again dominating run-downs of the worst malware menaces. Netsky-T and Netsky-Q, which occupy first and second places in Kaspersky's chart, have been among the leaders for some time. The Bagle-GT variant has been …
How many of these viruses are a threat to Macs or Linux machines?
I think the article was referring to popular computers. After all, it's well known that nobody writes viruses for Macs for the same reason that nobody writes other software for Macs - because only 3% of the computer world would use them.
That's alright. Keep on believing that market share is the only factor
This is the part where I mention the Witty worm, which targeted only 12,000. And that 1.5M macs that were sold last quarter.
Then you counter about me being an apple fanboy, and possibly the claim of not supporting two-button mice. Sure, that claim was false a decade ago, but it's always a party favorite.
Then I retort something about I'm sure Windows security is surely stronger. You want to rename a file. Cancel or Allow?
Great fun is had by all.
no, no, no, no
So all those webservers out there are oblivious to such infections then are they? Someone who successfully wrote a virus that could attack such (unix based) servers would surely be #1 don't you think? Maybe nobody writes viruses for the Mac/Linux because they require so much more effort???
3% of the home/desktop PC world I think you mean - and that'll be on the decline as well...
Does it always...
...have to break down into an OS X vs Windows argument? Seems a little useless, since we all know that Sensical people have a great argument against OS X, and Cool people can endlessly defent OS X. Each of you get a computer that works, then kindly neglect to connect it to the internet to spare everyone from your opinions.
My only gripe is that people always combine OS X and *nix. Sure its sort of *nix based, but Apple has made multiple mistakes with OS X that *nix learned about in the 70s. Just because it has a command line and can run bash doesn't make it secure.
The only sure way to out argue an Apple Fanboy is to take the argument to monolithic vs micro vs hybrid kernels : -)
It's all in the design.
D Wayte: "Maybe nobody writes viruses for the Mac/Linux because they require so much effort???"
And quite probably because very few (read 'almost none') of the few Linux viruses that have been written can spread beyond what the infected user can write to (e.g. Their own files, network shares, etc...)
Such is the design of UNIX(tm) (which is what Linux, etc... is based on.).
Oh well , go ask Microsoft about all the built in trojan and spyware that infests Windows Vista as it is shipped from the factory!
Who needs net nasties , when M$ supplies it for the price of a new latest and greatest PC box with next gen cpu's and super fast graphic cards , and the cost of of the newest OS on offer from Redmond !
Although , undoubtedly many of the smarter users will undoubtedly find a ways to disinfect the operating system of the factory installed unwanted phone home spy ware extras , or have they already done so with the simple basic hacking tools freely available on the world wide net?
Or will they just install clean Open Source , the viral proof OS instead , that be the question , and thus have the last laugh ?
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Analysis Hey, Teflon Ballmer. Look, isn't it time? You know, time to quit?
- Murdoch Facebook gloat: You're like my $580m, 'CRAPPY' MySpace
- Tablet? Laptop? HP does the splits with Tegra-based SlateBook x2
- NASA signs off on sampling mission to Earth-threatening asteroid