I know Im late on this subject. MS V Symantec

[ade234uk]

It seems Vista is totally locked down and it will be MS most secure product to date, lets wait and see?

Anyway Symantec are complaining that it will eventually drive them out of business.

Becuase of this would we now see companies like Symantec and Macfee creating software for Linux? Where else can they make there money apart from back up, partitioning and PCAnyhwere software?

If they did would you use their products?

Do you think it would create a Virus culture amongst linux distros?

[meng]

Symantec et al. are in a tough position, no doubt. I just don't understand your last question about a virus culture in Linux. How do you figure that might work?

[Tomosaur]

No, because most people will buy Vista anyway. Vista is unlikely to have an impact on the number of people using linux imo, except perhaps a few who refuse to upgrade their system for it. There still won't be enough people using Linux to warrant creating anti-virus software. Linux is also much more secure than Windows, so even if there WERE the thousands of virii windows currently suffers, it's unlikely you'd be infected unless through your own stupidity.

[kanem]

It strikes me as funny that an industry (or at least part of it anyway) can be built on the fact that a very popular item (Windows) is flawed. And then when those flaws are fixed there are huge complaints. It's like private security guards complaining that the police are doing too good a job at lowering crime.

But people will probably buy anti-virus stuff anyway, for a while at least. It's ingrained in them. That's why Linspire has anti-virus software. Not because it's needed, but because they got so many requests from ex-Windows users.

[meng]

It strikes me as funny that an industry (or at least part of it anyway) can be built on the fact that a very popular item (Windows) is flawed.
Every OS is flawed, even Linux. But I take your point.

[ade234uk]

Symantec et al. are in a tough position, no doubt. I just don't understand your last question about a virus culture in Linux. How do you figure that might work?

Well if say Symantec decided to brimg Norton Virus Suite for Linux would this send a message to people to start creating viruses or am I way off the mark

[meng]

I think you're way off the mark.

[ade234uk]

Well thats good to hear.

[meng]

It is good, assuming I'm right and you're wrong. But it's possible that you're right and I'm wrong. Here's my thinking in more detail:
The motivation/success of virus-writers depends on many things: intellectual challenge, size of userbase, intelligence of userbase (for want of better word), default security model of the OS (Linux), open-source nature of OS, community spirit of users (to help identify and patch flaws). Then throw into that the existence/non-existence of virus protection corporations, and it's only one of the many influences on the whole scenario. Then consider that there are already anti-virus programs for Linux, so Symantec wouldn't be the first entry into that market, just a (presumably) big player.

And THAT is why I don't see it making Linux more susceptible to viruses.

[Reshin]

I can already smell the upcoming lawsuits from EU...

[ice60]

i haven't read anything about kernel patching, but if 'hackers' can get round it there'll still be some place for symantec, they'll just have to find another way.

this might be really off the mark, but is there a US law which says something like patching/hooking the MS kernel is considered rootkit behaviour? so malware scanners which are made in the US have to protect from user space anyway??