Nah, i guess being part of >3 botnets almost certainly slows you down more than a resource hungry anti virus programm.Moon said:I use BitDefender, because it's the least obstructive. I might as well let trojans be on my computer rather than get huge resource drains like AVG.
I have settled for turning off automatic scans in AVG entirely.Moon said:I might as well let trojans be on my computer rather than get huge resource drains like AVG.
Keep in mind that this isn't because Linux is secure, but rather because Linux isn't mainstream. However if you turn that Linux/Unix box into a web server then you'll find that the reverse will be true.Anuken said:
This is pretty much my situation.
andwhyisit said:Keep in mind that this isn't because Linux is secure, but rather because Linux isn't mainstream. However if you turn that Linux/Unix box into a web server then you'll find that the reverse will be true.
multiple antiviruses will cause them not to work.QuoteHax said:Windows Defender
Norton
Malwarebytes
All at once, so nothing will get past my computer.
who in the world would use Norton?QuoteHax said:Norton
Any OS, no matter how secure, can be failed by any insecurity within a third party component.Anuken said:You're right, for the most part. But considering that it took ages for a mac virus to show up, I don't think there will be any viruses on linux for a while.
From what I've heard, Linux is slightly more secure than windows.
I never said linux was completely invulnerable to viruses; I just said it was slightly more secure.andwhyisit said:Any OS, no matter how secure, can be failed by any insecurity within a third party component.
its not a matter of security, its that not many have bothered to make very many viruses for it, yet. you may one day find that when a truly harmful virus for linux OS's is released its gonna be quite troublesome because there will be no real security program for linux that would recognise it because of how few there would be at the time.Anuken said:I never said linux was completely invulnerable to viruses; I just said it was slightly more secure.
According to this, security through obscurity isn't the only thing making linux more secure than windows. Of course, there are many views on this subject, but I would still rather use linux than windows.Goerge Bobicles said:its not a matter of security, its that not many have bothered to make very many viruses for it, yet. you may one day find that when a truly harmful virus for linux OS's is released its gonna be quite troublesome because there will be no real security program for linux that would recognise it because of how few there would be at the time.