[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:malware-list-
>] On Behalf Of Rene Herman
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:56 PM
> To: Eric Paris
> Cc:; Alan Cox;
> Subject: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux
interface for on
> access scanning
> The difference here is just that Linux systems are particularly bad at
> those tasks to begin with which in nice circular motions keeps those
> clueless users away, obviating the need to protect ourselves from
> If this stuff is to be discussed in a context as if Linux were
> on the desktop though, I believe it's rather unproductive to expect a
> fundamental difference with Windows in this respect.

Just an observation about this...

Since I earn my living on the basis of users, clueless or not, I've
gotten into the habit of just taking them as they come and trying to go
out of my way to not refer to them as clueless -- except in a few
specific and particularly annoying cases.

But that's not my point. My point is that Linux has become a
commercially viable environment with a lot of enterprise users, with a
significant number of enterprises are standardizing on it, or at least
officially supporting/allowing/encouraging its use. Because of that,
for example, we have a significant number of user issues coming in that
indicate that there are actually plenty of clueless Linux users, whether
the OS was intended for them or not.

The fact that they are there is the main reason that Red Hat and Novell,
for example (at least by my observation from the outside -- I can't
speak at all about how they see if from the inside) seem to be putting
the bulk of their efforts into their enterprise editions, as opposed to
their traditional technologist editions.

The bottom line, then, is that there ARE way more clueless Linux users
out there than there used to be, which makes them a) vulnerable to
losses by virtue of their own mistakes, and b) vectors for the spread of
malware. Which is kind of why we're here.

Jon Press

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-08 14:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans