Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux
jasonmicron writes "As previously reported on Slashdot, Microsoft has completed the aquisition of Sybari Software this morning. Before the ink was even dry, Microsoft cut all new antivirus support for all Unix and Linux definitions. Current customers will continue to receive support but new customers will not have the option to purchase the software under Unix / Linux. From TFA: Post acquisition, Syabri becomes a Microsoft subsidiary focusing on marketing anti-virus and anti-spam protection for Microsoft messaging and collaboration servers. It will continue to market Sybari's Lotus Domino products but will not sell Antigen versions for Unix and Linux."
And you're surprised by this why?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
*sigh*
it would have an OBVIOUS tag, duh
Well, if you're so upset, start your own Unix anti-virus company. Not so easy now, is it? It's always easier to complain than to do something.
Truly, if this stuff was allowed to go on in other industries we would barely be out of the stone chisel stage. Something needs to happen to bring the PC world to it's knees so that things start to shape up.
All of this in-fighting and patents/closed source/non-standardization needs to end... and NO Linux is not the be-all-end-all solution as it is just as bad at times.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Probably due to the lack of viruses/customers.
they'd cut support for Windows virus definitions.
I for one am absolutely shocked!!
Who woulda thunk it?
air and light and time and space
ClamAV is actually becoming usable, more hands might light work etc
I know lots of people here are going to cry foul, but come on: Who was gonna buy anti-virus software for linux from Microsoft?
Microsoft is affirming that Linux and Unix are more secure than Windows and don't require anti-virus software!
--Mike Boos
Fork the code now!!!! Wait... this wasn't FOSS? Screw em. It was their own fault.
You must be mistaken, Linux doesn't have viruses!
From the article:
Well this says to me one of two things:
You be the judge.
I guess I'm just happy Microsoft can't buy linux and drop all support for that.
They don't sale or support Unix or Linux. What is the problem? They need to focus on their customers. That makes plenty of business sense.
OK, the headline says they cut support but the summary says they are still offering support, just not the product. For that matter, do they have a UNIX/Linux version of ANY of their products, OSX aside?
Im not saying that virii arent in existance for unix or linux it just seems that most A/V for linux seems to be geared at protecting windows machines from the real world. Seems that linux is the armor protecting the sheep (windows) from slaughter.
Got hosting
Microsoft just wanted to help spread the word that Unix and Linux don't need antivirus because they are superior to Windows
Microsoft selling antivirus. That always leaves me gaping. It's like, I don't know, Lucrecia Borgia selling antidotes...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
So MS is doing all they can to not close down this route of Windows malware distribution. This benefits who?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Selling anti-virus services for Unix/Linux is like selling ice cream to polar bears anyway. It's good to see Microsoft focusing on the real problems :P
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Innovate onward, kind Microsoft!
squeaky wheel gets the grease.
"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this Battlestation." Grand Moff Gates err Tarkin.
Really though, is there ANYONE gasping in surprise, all companies tend towards monopoly activity unless someone/some government restricts them. I am honestly more bothered by WalMart than by M$.
they cut out Unix, but continue to support Lotus?!?! They really are afraid of competition.
SYS 64738
Microsoft isn't an embrace and extend operation; it's a buy, close, and mangle updated products operation.
:(
Oh, btw, I found some 40MB of Paris Hilton data! It's all porn, baby yeah! No STRAPON LESBIAN PORN today, or this week for that matter.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Great way for Micro$oft to give the Linux/Unix community the finger. Then again, I'm not surprised.
I'm sure that if Apple did the same thing, that Slashdot would post a story, right?
They are a Windows company (excluding office for the mac, of course). They bought this company to augment their windows offerings. Keep the parts of the company that help you, let go the parts that don't. Just like any other business aquisition.
Nothing to see here, move along.
-everphilski-
Whats the point when clam is comming along so nicely?
Virus scanners on unix are only any good for protecting downstream windows clients and clam is ideal for this, although admittedly not quite ideal for real-time scanning of NFS/SMB shares, but for mail / web virus scanning its more than sufficient.
If clam continues the way it is, there will be a very small market for unix virus scanners.
Jason
Now where will I buy antivirus software for Linux? Oh, wait, I don't NEED antivirus software on Linux.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Sure he could a Smooth Criminal, but maybe he's just a fun guy who the kids think is a real Thriller!
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The only reason Microsoft would drop support for Linux/Unix is because they realize how much more resources are needed to protect just Windows. How would Microsoft look if their anti-virus product couldn't prevent Windows from being crippled by a script-kiddie virus?
If you kill off all proprietary/closed source Linux offerings, what's left? Well, the need for stronger open source ones.
Thank-you Microsoft for helping to push all the alternatives into the open-source fee-for-service world.
watching all the slashbots castigate MS for not seeling them something they would never pay for anyway and have consistently asserted they dont need.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
OH NO! Microsoft stopped anti-virus support for Linux! Whatever will I do? Now I'm going to get one of Linux's "numerous" viruses.
This just means that more viruses that affect Micro$oft systems will be lying around on *NIX boxes. Micro$oft has just created a safe haven for viruses that they no longer patrol. I wonder how long it will be before Micr$oft declares that *NIX is the problem, because the unprotected *NIX boxes keep infecting Micro$oft boxes. Every OS should be on the lookout for viruses that can infect ANY OS. This is gonna bite Micro$oft in the butt. You heard it here first from Anonymous Coward!!!
There are plenty alternatives like those listed in the unix-linux antivirus mini-faq http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/openantiviru s/mini-faq/av-unix_e.txt?rev=1.40&view=markup Kindly compiled by the OpenAntivirus Project http://www.openantivirus.org/
Did anyone not see this coming?
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Honestly I think the parent was commenting on the practice of buying out the competition. Or, more acurately in this case, buying up a supplier for the competition so you can cut their legs out from under them. On a larger scale it's the exact kind of practice that prompted the creation of anti-trust laws in the US. Of course this is a niche product, so I'd leave it to a lawyer to determine how much anti-trust law applies.
I guess I'm a little confused...what do you need antivirus for Unix/Linux to begin with? I didn't know viruses for Unix/Linux really existed much in the wild enough to be a problem....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Who in their right mind would put it on their Linux boxes anyhow? A microsoft anti-virus running on a linux box?
The game? I get the car.
--
blank
I don't preview or spellcheck.
Their straight-faced answer is likely that it was a business/ market decision. I could look it up, but from a business standpoint, are we to believe that the Lotus Domino market is larger than the Unix/Linux market and merits continued support cuz they'll make (enough) money on it?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Read all about it here
Sybari's award-winning and innovative products coupled with its strong industry partnerships and deep integration with such products as Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 will deliver immediate value to Microsoft customers.
BTW, the "award-winning" that they are referring to is for tech support, not for exchange server management.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
usersystem#: freshclam //mounted/samba/share/here -r
usersystem#: clamscan
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
and you want to make millions, just crank out whatever software M$ doesn't want to exist on Linux and they will have to buy your company to maintain their monopoly.
It's not for protecting Linux machines, it is for protecting Windows machines connected to a Linux Machine. Most corporate mail servers do the anti-virus right on the server. The servers are Linux/Unix, but the viruses they are stopping are written for Windows.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
All along MS's life I've just been thrilled by how they re-defined "innovation" to mean "buy everything we don't have that seems successful".
:P :D
Whatever. Don't even listen to me. If I had the money...
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
MS proves the point that FOSS is the only real way to ensure one's system isn't going to be ripped out from under you. Ironically, as they themselves are eroded as the server platform of choice by repeatedly asking consumers to hop to their nextbigthing every few years. Plus, all the "lessons learned" shops have to endure as MS finally "gets it".
MS may have finally gotten the ideas of "the web", "security", "portal" and so many other trumps to their idea factory, but they have yet to understand how to build an enterprise server that doesn't need to migrate to a entirely new OS every 5 years. However, the 2000 shops are slowly letting them know...
it's obvious. americans do thing only for necessity. and ms necessity is to make their piece of software full of bugs, usefull to develop viruses and spys.
Since this software was being used on linux servers to protect windows users from viruses specific to MS software, hasn't MS just given the finger to the Windows users who so often unknowingly rely on programs like this to keep their computers safe?
What the hell's a "gewie?"
Before the ink was even dry, Microsoft cut all new antivirus support for all Unix and Linux
So stop wasting time whining about it and start a Linux antivirus software company or a SourceForge project depending on your philosophy / free time.
How these acquisitions are chosen.
Microsoft needs to expand into the video game market. They buy the one game company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then ends).
Microsoft needs to expand into the virtualization market. They buy the one virtualization company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then suffers).
Microsoft needs to expand into the antivirus email filter market. They buy one of the antivirus companies with support for linux/unix (which then ends).
Funny how these coincidences work.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I guess they reckon this is the only way they'll ever make their OS more secure than Linux.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I guess thats one approach to things...if your competitors don't have as many viruses, try to take away their protection too. Although i don't think it will make much difference because I didn't even know virus software for Linux existed and i've been using it for quite a few years.
So here's a question for you guys. If you owned this company or a similar one, and Microsoft wanted to buy you out for a good price, would you choose not to sell for ethical reasons regardless of the profit you would make?
Discuss, discuss
First, don't panic. Just because some company I've never dealt with stopped making a product I never used doesn't mean I feel the world is going in the crapper. There are other Unix/Linux Anti-V irus solutions.
There's ClamAV, which does an admirable job of keeping up with the stream of crap slung by the rest of the 'Net.
For commercial products, I've really liked Sophos' software. They were one of the only companies that supported the vast Unix/Linux versions we had when we made the selection.
Both work especially well when teamed with something like amavisd-new and your favorite MTA.
I recall some noise being made about McAffey bringing back their Linux AV software, too...
I used to think printing on on Unix sucked. Then I figured it out. Printing on Unix *does* suck. Like a Kirby.
... smart they would use this to get a leg into Linux and bring it down (ex use it to break it), good thing they aren't smart. eh?
--
When we look back on all we accomplished we think, oops.
I don't preview or spellcheck.
They did the same thing with RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus)- one of the best qmail/sendmail/postfix/courier and console+monitoring virus scanners when M$ bought it.
First the sales stopped, then the virus definitions took a few days to get updated on each big 'outbreak', then they stopped coming at all... *sniff*
Fortunately by then, ClamAV had matured more than it did when we purchased RAV for our mail servers, and it was kicked to the curb.
In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY (since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Part of the purpose of using anti-virus software on multiple architectures and platforms is to give redundancy. Utilizing competing products in the same area is better if one fails to a particular exploit while others prevail for the time being. The administrators to the root servers know this, and Microsoft decisions have hurt the stability of the Internet evidently today more than any other.
I wouldn't be surprised if more malicious software is identified in transit by non-Microsoft software than when it is scanned after being received by the receiving host/peer. Most Internet Service Providers have done this because of lazy or ignorant administrators or subscribers that are unrepentant on this chore.
without prejudice
"Microsoft, having obviously concluded that Linux has no need for the virus protection that Windows requires, has discontinued all of its anti-virus products for Linux." ...at least that's how the press release would read if Linux had the kind of marketing that other software has...
--
Xonmus
Increasing the entropy of the universe since 1972
-- Increasing the entropy of the universe since 1972.
Seriously, do Linux/Unix systems actually need Anti-Virus software? I thought viruses these days were mainly IE/ActiveX/Outlook thing anyways. Plus, Unix doesn't rely on the file extension to tell it the file type, so this eliminates a lot of the problems as well.
1) MS will not be including Gecko/KHTML browswer in Longhorn as well as any other intersting features like WinFS
2) Will be including virus potection (eventually) into windows to help all those friendly AV companies out there.
3) MS has included a basic Firewall to help support the growth of other software based firewall companies.
4) MS will be giving away free its anti-malware software to aid in the competitive market of anti-spy/malware products.
nothing to see here, move along.
The only reason Microsoft would drop support for Linux/Unix is because they realize how much more resources are needed to protect just Windows.
The Linux/Unix versions were all about protecting Windows anyway.
What this does is send a signal to IT depts that the XP workstations on your network aren't considered to be virus-protected unless you ensure that Windows Server serves those workstations. If you serve those workstations with Linux, then MS will consider then unprotected or "untrusted" or whatever.
We're a Lotus shop (and a Trend Micro antivirus customer). Lotus is bigger in the established platform base than a non-Lotus person would ever suspect, and the Lotus antivirus market is very profitable. Besides, Windows is the main platform upon which Lotus Domino is run these days.
Kaspersky Lab has actually hired *nix RAV developers and helped existing RAV users with migration. Good things deserve to be kept and developed further.
Are you saying that you want /. to post a story about a 3 year old article?
Listening to all the *nix crowd sniggering everytime us Microsoft devotees get battered by YAVO (yet another virus outbreak) I thought *nix was impervient to such lowly things as 'viruses' and 'spyware' and 'self executing email programs' Why then such dismay at King Bills decision to snip support for this product? Surely it is simply a good business decision to cut out some dead wood in an aquired product line? I mean, surely the *nix AV products don't sell that well? (No moderating as Troll - this is a serious question. Some of us really are Microsoft fans - I've even got a framed piccy of Bill in my front room (some part of that previous sentence may not be true))
GASP! Oh no! Wait... Oh, yea - that's right: Who cares!? In soviet russia support drops you (or some such)!
Is anyone suprised by this? We all know that MS is afraid of the growing Linux market share and they will do anything to turn away potential customers. You want Anti-Virus support from us - buy our OS! Oh, you planned to buy that Linux serve - tough noogies - no support for you!
I tell you - this is all part of a grad plan:
Come on - it's so simple it can't fail!
I'm teminally incoherent
Bear shits in woods, pope a catholic. And now sports!
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
There are a couple of good reasons for having anti-virus software on a unix/linux mail server, even though they don't get viruses. First, it can protect Windows email clients. Second, anti-virus software can also pick up things like phishing emails, which are platform-agnostic.
Fortunately, good quality free (speech and beer) anti-virus software is available from http://www.clamav.net/ - and it's packaged in many linux distros.
Then the only *NIX alternative is OSS, and we know from their extensive and helpful educationa-, er, marketing material how BAD that is.
Since when are there viruses (virii?) for Linux anyways?
I'm really interested. I was of the opinion that there were like 6 joke viruses for Linux, and that's it.
If the Unix virus scanners were intended to stop the spread of Windows malware, couldn't this potentially lead to MS shooting themselves in the foot?
1) Sell to MS
2) Leak the Source
3) Get Sued
4) ??? 5) Profit!!
wait...
Geeze, why is this so hard to figure out? It is bad because it means that you now have to have a MS server rather than a Unix server to protect your client boxes.
And then make intelectual properties from all possible part of the soft to prevent others to make something similar. Yes this is to protect inovation.. Bullshit!
Whats the point when clam is comming along so nicely? ... although admittedly not quite ideal for real-time scanning of NFS/SMB shares
I think that's some of the point - clam may be "coming along" but it's not ideal yet. I find this phenomenon in a lot of OSS projects - that they are somewhat perpetually in the "coming along" stage. Although, so is Gmail (among other services) and beta release cycles are all the rage...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
If they can do this to one company, what makes you think they'll stop? Jesus this is scary...
"C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
Why no support for the Mac? ;)
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
We run avg for linux on our mailservers. Its kept up to date well, and it has never failed us. ClamAV is nice, but nobody is paid to keep that up to date. I wouldnt be able to talk shit on a company that gave me the software for free, I would if it fails and I bought it.
So why bother to buy an AV company part of whose business is Unix systems?
Because it's only part of the business, like you said? They just want the other parts of the business.
See, even MS believes Linux/Unix is safer then Windows. If it wasn't why would they cut it? If they could make money from it, wouldn't the stock holders demand they sell it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In related news, State Farm will not insure Floridians against avalanches.
Who cares?
--Joey
I am not sure why people think Microsoft should support a competitor. Do you see McDonalds supporting Burger King?
I swear that so few people understand the nature of competition.
Here's a bit of Useless Knowledge(tm) for everyone: I seem to recall reading somewhere that polar bear milk was something like 40% fat, which seems like it would therefore be suitable for making ice-cream from directly...
I leave the technical challenges involved in milking the polar bears and trying to market "walrus-vanilla flavor ice cream" to a more enterprising individual...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
This is kindof scary if you think about it... I mean, what is stopping them from just going around and buying all Linux friendly companies? They have the money to do this, no?
Next Slashdot Headline: Microsoft takes over Novel and drops support for SUSE... Ack!
I'm teminally incoherent
The Sheriff of Nottingham hast increased taxes to supporters of some Robin, also knownst as "the hood".
News at XI.
Depends... If you've incorporated, you're owned by wall street investors who would most likely feed their own mothers to the ravenous bug blatter beast of Traal to make a buck... You think they'll balk at selling your company to the Evil Software Monopoly if it'll make a buck?
Why? Because you are a MSCE and only know how to point and click and don't know about INSTALL and README files...
Oh well, what the hell...
There are lots of Linux AV solutions. AVG is probably the best choice, Linux or Windows. It's fast as hell, cheap, and has an excellent record.
The real thing is Linux people show a distinct hatred for MS. They actively try to avoid buying MS products. So it makes no sense to try and target a market of people like that. All you'll do is waste your money.
This will in no way cripple Linux. It will simply send the business to MS's competitors.
... if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em!
Microsoft: making the Net more secure, by decreasing the security products keeping it secure. I suppose that such an MS strategy might eventually mean *less* Linux/Unix viruses, by helping to destroy all the Linux/Unix installs on the Net.
--
make install -not war
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So that's probably the reason for them to stop Linux support. They can't keep up with cleaning up all the packages...
Ethical reasons somehow go away when the money is enough.And Microsoft has the money to prove it.It's easy to say that I would never do it,untill of course,I'm offered more money than I could ever make otherwise.
First, selling out to MS is not unethical cause MS is not an evil company. I don't think they're a bunch of saints (by a long shot), but they're not evil. Remember, IBM used to be thought of in the same light (and had many of the same legal problems) as MS now.
Second, resistance is futile. MS can work with you or around you, giving you far more competition than you ever bargained for. Which would you prefer?
Third, I would take the money and start a new company, maybe one more interesting than the last - e.g., a company that focuses solely on Linux security.
Fourth, if MS wants to pay too much for my company, who am I to say no.
This makes me think that http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/MS_Buys_Evil.htmlthi s is maybe more true than I thought originally.
I think anyone could have told us that. What idiots.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Really?!
The fact that it's not so easy is the whole point. It's particularly difficult when all of the IP you'd potentially be able to build upon is owned by a company that has no intention of giving it to you, and doesn't even sell a competing product.
And you're concerned by this why?
The ONLY reason I need any anti-virus protection on Linux is to protect the Windows boxen it serves! The only reaon to switch to Linux servers was because of their shitty OS performance in a server role and its vulnerability to a number of exploits.
This is just more impetus to switch from Windows on the desktop: if they won't provide the protection my servers need to provide to their shitty OS, then it is time to dump their shitty OS on the desktops well!
Thank you Microsoft!
There are plenty other good antivirus product for linux/unix. Trendmicro is a big one. They also support domino antivirus.
They don't sale or support Unix or Linux. What is the problem? They need to focus on their customers. That makes plenty of business sense.
You don't get it : it's buy a product, and disabling it to anihiliate competition. If MS buys every commercial company developping for unix/linux then announces they drop the unix/linux support, at the end they will render those OSes close to useless.
willy
someone got pissed off and, instead of just taking their toys and going home, bought up all the toys on the playground and then went home. now no one has anything to play with.
and of course the US goverment will look at this and go "oh look at the cute kiddie who can buy all the toys and go home. isn't that sweet. what a lil' entrepreneur he is."
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
One the one hand, I know from /. that Unix has no viruses. On the other hand, Microsoft must have done something evil. But if there are no viruses, how evil can it be?
ERROR! ERROR!
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Yeah so it's a big no-duh as it seems to step in line with the general attitude to M$ towards competition.
Too bad the US government only pretends to be anti-monopoly. Maybe someone can continue bringing suits against them in the EU. The more they're out due to being asses, the less they'll tend to be asses (at least outwardly.)
Microsoft is AFRAID.
this is a chickenshit move, from a chickenshit company, led by chickenshits.
BUT...the reality is: Unix DOESN'T NEED ANYTHING from Microsoft. let them buy out every proprietary unix vendor that exists. they still won't stop free software, unix or anything else that works exceedingly better than the steaming pile of shit they call software coming from the bowels of redmond.
hell, gates is even kissing red chinese ass. what a woose.
Why did they do that? They could get money out of it? It doesn't hurt their business model to get money does it? I thought that was their main thing :D.
Linux users will just move to another product. M$ loses money. Guess their stupid.
Virus detection programs on UNIX or Linux are usually deployed on mail servers that kill the viruses before they hit Windows-based mail clients.
Therefore, cutting support puts Windows mail clients connected to UNIX mail servers at threat.
Stupid, stupid decision from a company that claims to be serious about security.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Companies buy other companies all the time, and make decisions that will impact a group of end users every time. The reason this is such breaking news on /., IMO, is that it's Microsoft "appearing" to give the shaft to *nix platforms. I'm sure MS didn't say "let's buy this company so we can stick it to the Linux guys." They have made unethical decisions before, but this would have been just stupid business sense. The primary reason they purchased this company, as the article states, is to have anti-virus technology for their messenger components. Why invest time and resources internally to develop something when they can just buy the technology already working? Cutting support for *nix was just a bonus. In all reality, would it make better business sense for them to continue developing and supporting software for the OS's that directly compete with them? No!
Some people may recall a company called Sequent. Here's a perfect example of a company who had a great product, and threatened a titan in the industry (IBM). IBM purchased them, took the technology that they wanted (low-level locking that exists in AIX 5L today), and trashed the rest of the company. It left all the PTX customers out to dry. But why would they care to continue developing PTX on Sequent platforms when they wanted to advance their POWER-based servers running AIX?
This is really nothing exciting IMO. So Microsoft acquired a company and dropped support for *nix. That is the most logical thing they could have done with the acquisition. Please try again for interesting news instead of touting the "you bastards!" picket sign outside the Evil Empire's headquarters.
Seems to me that Microsoft embodies evil on a couple of levels. At the very least, Windows stinks.
I've been hooked on MS antivirus, I'll do ANYTHING to keep using it. Or not.
Why should they support a competing 'product'?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> So here's a question for you guys. If you owned this company or a similar one, and Microsoft wanted
> to buy you out for a good price, would you choose not to sell for ethical reasons regardless of the
> profit you would make?
If it meant take the money and run, yeah, I would. If it meant becoming a M$ employee, then no chance in hell.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
We switched to Vexira from Central Command. Midway through our contract, CC was kind enough to tell us we had to upgrade to their new software, and by the way, you have less than a week to do it. This was between Christmas and New Years. Did I say the the new software didn't support our existing OS? (RH 7.2, patches from Progeny.)
Every time we've used proprietary AV software we've gotten screwed.
Solution: apt-get install clamav.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
I believe the main reason for this is the inability to support it. They simply don't have the support staff to deal with linux issues. That's fair enough.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Big deal. MS buys competitors. Wal-Mart undercuts their competitors to the point where they'll take a loss on a product line just to kill a competitor. The local pizza joint stays open 2 hours later than their competitors. What's your point?
I don't respond to AC's.
Unix/Linux has decided to cut virus support.
If I wanted to run Microsoft software, I'd be running Windows instead of Linux, now wouldn't I?
Besides, do you really trust Microsoft enough to use an anti-virus product from them?
No matter where you go... there you are.
Mod Parent Up, it is the same as I would point out!
Depends on your motives.
I am a GNU zealot, so my motives are to make a product and keep it free.
The average business person's motives are to make as much money as quickly as possible and retire or do it all over again. So they couldn't care less what happens to their widgets as long as they get theirs. They seem to be more than happy to do business with Microsoft.
Capitalism is a religion for some people and ethics isn't part of their doctrine.
But what excuse do we give people for accepting capitalism as the best economic model? Greed as a motive. So what's the point? We've already sold our souls, why to complain about the heat now..
..for scanning email and file shares to protect Windows installs.
It's common for infected Windows clients to try to transfer viruses and worms thru file shares and email systems, which commonly run Linux. Using virus scanners there provide extra protection for the Windows clients.
Obviously Microsoft wants you to use Windows servers as it provides a extra level of lock-in for their desktop market. (Linux servers work well with Windows/Linux/OS X clients, Windows servers only work well with Windows clients). So it make sense that they aren't going to support a competitor.
Which is stupid, but doesn't matter. It's more stupid to get worked up over.
Fuck Microsoft, long live ClamAV.
What monopoly? Does MS have a monopoly on the AV market? Funny, I use Free-AV They're not owned by Microsoft. I know that there are many, many, many other AV products out there put out by companies that are NOT MS. What monopoly are you talking about, exactly, and how does it pertain to this discussion?
I don't respond to AC's.
A lot of people pound their chests and say they wouldn't sell.... until they are REALLY offered good money for it.
eTrade SUCKS
... the system needs to change. It's not working to the benefit of us all. It's hurting healty capitalism.
Unless things have drastically changed in recent years, I remember Sybari's most important product being their "Antigen" software which allowed efficient scanning of *email* for virii. We purchased the version of their product for Exchange Server back when Exchange 5.5 was a pretty recent product and people were still running NT 4.0 on their workstations.
I assumed the Unix/Linux versions of Sybari products were typically purchased for this purpose - in-line virus scanning of corporate email as it went through the Unix or Linux server?
Wow. That's really something.
As an OpenBSD user, I think it is now time for me to crap in my pants, get a new pair, and then crap into my pants one more time.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
If your product is full of holes, why not make a few more bucks by charging people to fix them? I think MCSFT is long past the point of caring (in any serious way) what their user base thinks of them. On top of which, they can make it harder for Unix boxen to act as mail servers effectively, and hopefully moving a few more copies of exchange. Its a great way to make money, and who needs friends when you can just buy new ones?
It's complicated.
Don't forget Microsoft bought FoxBase and killed MacOS support to kill databases on MacOS.
And Microsoft bought OneTree and promptly killed commercial quality version control for MacOS (they dead-ended the format and only with much begging allowed others {MW} to make clients.)
However, Bungie sold themselves because they didn't have deep pockets, were starving, and the gaming industry drove them that way. Microsoft needed that flagship killer app. They didn't just wax the MacOS release, they delayed the Windows release to make it non-relevant.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
I suspect the choice is: if you don't sell to Microsoft when they want to buy you, they'll just crush you instead.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The headline should read:
"Microsoft Does not think Unix, Linux Need Antivirus Software"
In a surprise move today, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) announced that they would be discontinuing support for Antigen on the Linux and Unix platforms. Though they would not state the reasons, it is clear to this reporter that Microsoft has deemed Linux and Unix so stable and secure that no a/v software is needed.
Second, anti-virus software can also pick up things like phishing emails, which are platform-agnostic.
;)
Platform-agnostic? You mean that the software isn't sure that platforms exist?
Remember... there are "no linux vulnerabilities". Linux doesn't need AV software, because thanks to it's magical Open source development it's infinitely more secure.
The idea of Microsoft writting Anti-Virus software for Unix/Linux is laughable, considering they can't even secure their own OS.
They are good at securing market-shares, but not computers.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
I was under the impression that UNIX/Linux is so super secure it doesn't have virus problems. One could conclude that UNIX/Linux would have no need for an anti-virus application. If this is wrong, then people need to stop claiming that UNIX/Linux is not susceptable to viruses.
Whats the point when clam is comming along so nicely?
We are here bitching about anti-competitive behaviour, and you are asking "What is the point of competition?"!?!?!?!???! Even free, OSS needs competition to bring out the best.
Microsoft will now sell software for Windows that is needed because Microsoft has problems creating secure software. How exactly does this help the consumer, who just wanted a good operating system to start with?
After all... Linux and Unix don't need antiviruses, Windows does. "Linux doesn't get enough viruses to warant an anti-virus product, but Windows does. We will stop the development of the Linux product because the resources would be better spent making pathetic attempts to make Windows more secure" is basically what I got when I first saw this. Droping support for your competitors anti-virus products doesn't look good on you. If anything they should have dropped Windows' support because "Windows is secure, all the problems are user errors."
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
Maybe it was the only way to get the good developers from the acquisition to write Windows code instead of UNIX code?
- A
Sounds like this would be a good time to get someone to introduce a new bill in congress that would pevent a company from doing this. Something along the lines that when a company like Microsoft buys a company that has a product for it's rivals (Linux, Mac, etc), it would have to provide the product to the market place for 3 years and support for 5. If after that time there is no product like it available in that market, the company has to sell the rights to the product to another company or open source it.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
No, I'm just saying that Clam is up to the job and its very hard to compete with free. Its certainly not worth Microsoft pursuing unix anti-virus with Clam for competition and a platform which is well outside their development and marketing focus.
Jason.
need no antivirus for my linux box. like helping windows virii spread...
They are looking out for their customers, not trying to maintain a monopoly.
They purchased a spyware search company since they have a spyware problem. There are still commercial and free spyware search tools available.
Now they're purchasing an AV company since they have a virus problem. There are still commercial and free AV tools available.
Most people do not want to continually purchase AV software. Look at Symantec and McAfee how they changed the install on Dells and others down to 90 days. Even though it is "free" it is a means for them to get the consumer to purchase new AV bundled with firewall/spyware/identity/etc.
I wish Microsoft would have done this years ago (or just fix the problems [yeah, like that would happen]).
Virus/Spyware/Spam cost consumers billions. This is a good thing that Microsoft is finally doing something about it.
Just remember, if Microsoft didn't have these problems, Symantec, McAfee, Sophos, and others wouldn't exist, at least not in the AV market. Now that MS wants to fix these problems they're a monopoly?
Well for mail/web scanning boxes Clam is sufficient. I believe that Watchguard for instance have plugged it into some of their firewalls for these applications Clam is up to it and is displacing paid for unix anti-virus. Particularly as most anti-virus vendors don't seem to know how to sell unix versions properly - McAffe and the eternal "demo" springs to mind.
I do completely agree that most open source software is continually in that coming along stage. Always missing the final usability, polish, documentation and managability completeness that makes it completely inadequate for desktop or the end user.
A classic example is Firefox, Windows Group Policy support seems to be handled via add-ons and not well properly contained within the core product. If that was in place then firefox could really start climbing in corporate acceptance and widespread usage. Convince 1 IT and management team and firefox could be pushed out to thousands of desktops within a single organisation.
Oh well.
Jason.
1.buy a company which has a large linux business base 2.drop it's linux products. 3.profit? fyi they did this not long ago to ravantivirus
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
another round of microsoft bashing. even though you know you'd do the exact same thing if you were microsoft. why would microsoft support unix antivirus?
That's how it works. Deal with it or get the fuck out of our country, you fuking communist!
In other news, MSFT just sold all your customer data to some fucking company in Qatar. "It was good business," said Microsoft CEO Stever Ballmer.
Which is even better if one knows the etymology of "thrill".
Main Entry: thrill
Pronunciation: 'thril
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English thirlen, thrillen to pierce, from Old English thyrlian, from thyrel hole, from thurh through
Once again the bastards shoot the arrows of war instead of extending the olive branch of peace. I hope that someday they screw up big time, and someone else comes along to smear them all over the asphalt, hopefully linux.
The Unix world never needed AV software. Unix AV packages are not for running on Unix systems -- they're for running on mail servers to find Windows binaries. The problem is that Windows clients *do* need antivirus software, and if you're running an *IX mail server (i.e. your mail admin isn't an MCSE), you want to be able to try to reduce the amount of Windows malware hitting the Windows boxes by running some software to catch some of it.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Actually the sales of *NIX versions were cut about 5 months ago. How do I know? I called and asked about it, then realized after the fact that it was the company MS was buying out.
So, erm, bit late.
I just finished reading an article on Linux viruses which I thought to be quite interesting. Here's the link.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
You can't deny their expertise in the area ;-)
Not to mention Windows' unmatched collection of them. What other OS can boast as many as they?
ClamAV
s /
http://www.clamav.net/
OpenAntiVirus Project
http://www.openantivirus.org/
Actualy I have an Email server setup wit Postfix + AmavisNEW + SA + ClamAV, and I'm yet to see a virus that passed undetected.
Check our virus detection statistics here:
http://integracao.saude.rio.rj.gov.br/amavis-stat
We're behind the main corporate server, so our department depends on it to send or receive email. They use a NortonAV server, but more than once an infected email passed trough, and it were stoped by our Server.
So I now wonder how ClamAV would perform against the proprietary alternatives...
I really want to try it, but our "corporate policy" states that every email traffic must pass trough the "homologated" AV solution. We're actally the only department that is really using Linux for real, and the rest of the company still has this strong Microsoft culture and don't quite trust Open Source...
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
[chuckles]
:-)
Original post states that people overhype Linux, unnecessarily rag on MS.
Your own post immediately overhypes BSD.
Incidently, the reason MS catches an undeserved amount of mudslinging is simple. For many years, MS has made many people very unhappy, many of whom were their customers. Those people couldn't do much to MS at the time, but MS developed a very negative image for itself. Now, at every opportunity, MS gets slagged as people work off years of frusteration with them.
The grandparent and parent post are right that criticism of MS is often overly harsh, but wrong in that MS didn't earn said criticism (it's just many years of irritation being spent now every time a flaw appears). Basically, MS is having to pay now for some profitable-but-unpopular moves in the past like playing off incompatibility, abusing monopoly powers, producing unreliable software, charging a large chunk of change for their products, and not making it particularly easy to reach developers at MS.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Umm, Last time I checked Microsoft has no monopoly in the Anti-Virus market. Besides if you are talking about its monopoly in the PC OS market, this move hardly affects it one way or another.
This may actually be a good thing, believe it or not, for ClamAV accuracy. ClamAV was in danger of becoming too popular.
In the very specific-and-limited realm of software that uses heuristics to block malicious content, being the big dog is not necessarily best. There are no network benefits to having many copies of an AV package available (possible exception: those that phone home about new malicious content). It just means that all the malware authors test against and work on bypassing your software.
Let's take a brief look:
* Web browsers. IE is the overwhelmingly dominant browser. Firefox has a number of good architectural decisions made from a security standpoint, but it sure as hell isn't free from potentially-exploitable security holes. It's just that very few people are exploiting them. Why would they want to, when they can get ten times the return by exploiting IE? Sure, maybe after they've attacked IE a zillion ways they might be interested in spending resources on Firefox, but not right away.
* Spam blocking. Spammers now not infrequently run spam past major spam-blocking systems before sending it, and keep tweaking it until it gets past them.
* Desktop Virus scanning. In the past, major antivirus systems (like Norton Antivirus) have been directly attacked and disabled by viruses.
* Email Virus scanners. You think this will be any different?
My main concern is that Microsoft may be positioning itself to begin dictating email standards, which would give it very strong influence over the Internet. (They already tried this with their patent-encumbered SPF alternative, and while I'm not familiar with Exchange, I'm sure that Exchange follows the typical Microsoft pattern and "works better" with other Microsoft clients and servers in a myriad of ways).
Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ?
Unix antivirus scanners are used on mailservers to scan for Windows viruses that might affect Windows boxes, not to scan for viruses written for Unix.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Sorry, folks. Saying *nix doesn't have viruses is just fan-boy. Believing it is ignorant. As a matter of fact, I run Windows and Linux. Windows does tend to get more, simply because it has more market share. However, I can say that the only virus/worm I've ever gotten that DESTROYED important data was on Linux. God damned phpBB worm that replaces *.html among other things.
Anyway, such generalizations are foolish anyway, since it's usually not the OPERATING SYSTEM level software getting the virus/worms. It's some badly written service.
Anyway... you get the point. But please, stop being slashdot zombies and claiming Linux is perfect.
Keith
It is a prima facie anti-competitive action. As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft should be obligated to continue to operate the Linux AV business as long as it is profitably viable.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Half smart, anyway. Anti-virus software essentially amounts to a user-triggered denial of service attack. If you want to stop viruses, change your behavior and design/code an O.S. that exceeds the low standards Windows sets. If many Linux users out there need anti-virus software, Linux needs to be fixed.
It sure must be nice to have deep enough pockets for a convicted monopolist like MSFT to delay the punishment phase of the lawsuit with DoJ until there was a "change of venue" (like the Dubya regime siezing power). Delays in court have been used numerous times by MSFT to postpone the inevitable negative judgement long enough for their their opponent's victory to be a Phyrric victory, as altered by ever-changing market forces.
When all the "positive" press that MSFT has wrongfully acquired (like their Shared Source Initiative) has been "un-spun", Microsoft's net effect on the computer industry (both software and hardware) has been negative.
Apple's transition to Intel's x86 platform could have been a major threat to Microsoft, but for the fact that MSFT has two products Apple still needs -- VirtualPC and MS Office Suite. Without MS Office Suite on OS X, Apple would have zero presence in the corporate IT world. Bundling WINE with the x86 release(s) of OS X would mitigate Apple's need for MSFT's VirtualPC.
Unfortunately, the siren call of Intel's embedded (processor/chipset) DRM will prove to be a power too great for Apple to resist: Apple will need it to differentiate the commodity x86 platform that they will need to compete. Apple does not have the deep pockets to make paper-thin margins on hardware to make up for with great software. Apple is still a hardware company, too. If Apple were to give up the hardware side of the market, they are (argueably) 18 months ahead of MSFT in OS development. MSFT would not look very favorably on Apple entering direct desktop competition for the OS wars, and the Mac platform version of MS Office Suite would quickly be dropped.
MSFT has already proven that they are quite willing to relinquish a revenue stream (like the unix/linux AV software) in favor of shoring up their OS to the threat of increasing server OS competition. Apple could consider that as a public warning to stay out of direct desktop OS competition with MSFT. Ahh, the amazing power of monopolies.
comon open source communiity, where's my free anti-virus software? like i need it anyway...
Well, 'open source' has that name for a reason. I'm not sufficiently into windows to use terms like 'Windows Group Policy', but I suspect _you_ know pretty much what it entails, so why don't you just make and submit a patch for Firefox?
You will be revered by others waiting for that specific feature.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Is there a ClamAV for Microsoft Windows that will scan on demand? This makes scanning happen because its always on and invisible to novice users.
Is there a ClamAV for Microsoft Windows that will upgrade itself (virus definitions and "engine" as some anti-virus programs call it) when needed, invisibly, and on a schedule? This helps novice users not need to think about maintenance issues which, frankly, go unaddressed rather than better understood.
ClamWin won't yet do either of these things, according to its FAQ. I'd love to learn more about a free software anti-virus program for Microsoft Windows that could do these things.
Digital Citizen
Oh gee, Microsoft decided to only develope for their environment. Harsh. We should all cry now and ask Bill why Microsoft decided to focus on their own product.
People complain about anything these days. If Microsoft doesn't want to develope AV/AS programs for Unix/Linux, who cares? It's their own damn perogative, and they've got their own damn environment. I say, let them play with their own toys until they get those right, before they start didlemacking around in other realms.
Has anbody here thought that Microfost cut AV support for Linux because they don't have enough knowledge on this field - ok, so they hire a few guys who know about it - but still, what makes us think that they'll let any software to be sold under their name which they can't understand? Maybe they've cut this to eliminate av on the *nix server once and for all, even for mail and file-servers and so on. We all know that Microsoft plans on shipping anti-virus technology for free (or very very cheap) with Windows (or download for "legal customers"-- like that's gonna do any good). Maybe this is a way to deal with piracy? Ok,ok, it's a conspiracy theory but look, if they offer anti-virus software for clients only, then the clients in big corporations (who don't use Win2k3 server) will simply have to have AV software installed. If they go for Microsoft (which, in a large firm is usually an obvious choice, although I fail to see the point, why) they'll have to insure every machine is legal. If a home windows user wants to download it, it won't let him, thus spreading viruses only on pirated Windows. Oh yeah, and then they'll write their own viruses :-).
If the Linux/Unix servers don't clean Windows virus they will increase in number of "aggresions" (the virus) making Windows users angry(est) with their OS. And if someone tell them "there's another OS that doesn't have virus infections" they will be more willing to change.
Linux/Unix users, admins aren't the ones being deprived or cheated. The poor Windows users themselves rely on Unix/Linux Mail/File/etc. Servers to scan for virii for their own sakes. Well done Microsoft, you really just kicked yourself in the crotch.
M$ cannot buy ClamAV - it's an open source project.
The "good side" of this story is that M$ is pushing users towards using ClamAV, and it is good because the project needs a critical mass of users.
Opps... forget to remove those extra $i++'s. started the script using while loops, switched to for loops... anyways...
As mentioned, clamav is a part of the Cygwin distribution.
Is there a ClamAV for Microsoft Windows that will upgrade itself (virus definitions and "engine" as some anti-virus programs call it) when needed, invisibly, and on a schedule?
Sure. Is typing:
easy enough? The process should take all of a few seconds. Scheduling updates is possible any number of ways, including a script, cron, at (the MS Task Scheduler), etc.
ClamWin won't yet do either of these things, according to its FAQ.
Looking for a Windows port of any of the hundreds of Unix utilities most of us take for granted is somewhat of an ass-backwards approach. From the perspective of an end-user, first you need a terminal, then a shell, then interpreters, then all the programs.
If you're looking for advice, visit Cygwin and start with the default distribution. Then, instead of pointing and clicking trying to select what you need, install the whole damned thing and spend the next few months discovering and learning something useful.
A Cygwin Tip: To make things livable, be sure to avoid using cmd.exe and use rxvt insetad as your terminal (supports fake transparency, images, custom colors, etc.), and then spend some time customising it, removing scrollbars, etc., as well as selecting a good font (MS Andale Mono works well on Windows systems).
Good luck.
We have linux mail servers here and XP on most desktops. I was on the lookout for new A/V software and my requirements are simple:
1. Works on XP
2. Allows me to d/l my updates via ftp or http
3. Works on Linux
There's a suprising amount of vendors who support this and there's a suprising amount of people using linux for mail servers. Microsoft need to understand that in a market they don't monopolise, cutting off potential customers is not the way to do business.
Lame of Microsoft as usual.
Oh well, no problem, we have ClamAV.
http://www.clamav.net/
yep, we got clamAV, spamasassin and Exim running on Solaris here and it is _the_ shit. like parent says, quick auto-updates, catches everything (pretty much) and doesn't even kill our machines with load. and it's OSS. anyone need anything more??
Aren't they still thinking about fining MS 3M/day. Surely this is a bit evidence that MS is still up to its old tricks
I am not their fan either, but they are withing their rights here, Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ? 640kb should be enough for anyone.. remember that particular phrase?
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low
The Death Star music off in the distance....
The Crimson Dragon
I cant believe this. What am I going to do now? How will I keep the virii off of my Ubuntu Linux machine? How will I keep tojan-horse/spammers from hijacking my private webserver?? Oh lord, what is I gonna do? Ummmm can anybody provide me with information on "unix viruses?" As far as I can tell, there is very little you can actually do without priveledged access to the system. Regardless, we've all disabled the root account, right? RIGHT? :)
The only unix "virus" i have ever heard of required the user to manually execute a dubious script.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
"They're really gambling here..."
You've got to be joking. I can't think of any mid to upper level management type in most Banking, Financial, Healthcare, or other business that would say "let's ditch Windows". There are *SO* many custom applications that run on Windows it's ridiculous. Find me a *direct* replacment for Office that's supported like Office is (with addon's and custom applets and the like).
Then you add in comments about Linux like "it's shareware" and there's "no support" and it's a no brainer that it'll never happen. Please don't argue to me about Linux, these are folks that invented CYA, and "nobody gets fired for buying IBM" arguments in the first place.
Linux isn't even mainstream yet. It's still very nitch (which is fine).
One day it will be more mainstream, but that day is far from here.
Gamble, Ha!
PS: I'm the only person in a 400 PC environment that even has a Linux PC. A couple of other IT guys have "played" with Linux, but that's it.
You need AV on Unix mail/file/whatever server if you have Win* clients, to protect them from malware...
;)
Now, you can't buy anymore the Antigen solution for *nix servers
*BUT*
You can simply switch ALL of your clients from Win* to *nix, so you will not need AV software protection anymore...
In a commercial environment it makes sense to use many layers of protection. At home, it makes more sense for me to tell others that securing their machine is their problem, not mine.
Linux isn't vulnerable to viruses!
Damn that Pennybags! Between him and Scrooge McDuck, all the best ankle is taken.
I think you missed the fact that I was talking about the long term - and the LONG long term, for that matter. How much do you want to bet that in 100 years, M$ will be long forgotten?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
As far as the intended audience is concerned, no, it is not easy enough. Users of proprietary operating systems have not been taught to value software freedom, they have been taught to value price and convenience over everything else. That's a big part of the reason why they're users of proprietary operating systems. Hence, doing any manual effort to handle what they view as a system administration task is too much effort for them to expend. In their opinion, scanning and eradicating viruses, backdoors, trojan horses, etc. is something best done automatically, without any user intervention, and without interrupting what they use a computer for. It's accepted practice by now to somehow intercept a file open function call at the OS level, do all of the scan & repair work necessary before letting the OS pass the filehandle on to the caller in the normal fashion. Typing in any command or doing periodic scans doesn't address scan-on-open at all.
Installing Cygwin as a dependency for the ClamAV antivirus program is a showstopper for them. No significant group of Windows users are going to do this when every other program they have used has no dependencies. Requiring anything on the command line is a sign of an incomplete program in their eyes. And, as I explained above, this particular task shouldn't require any user interaction at all. It should "just work".
Now, I know that this is not too much to ask technical people to do, and I know that software freedom sometimes means living without certain conveniences for a while. But I ask that you keep your audience in mind and check to see if your audience matches the audience of people who could use the service that you recommend. Every Microsoft Windows user is told they need antivirus services. Thus, responding to that need by telling them to use this shell instead of that shell, or typing some simple command-line instruction will be perceived by them as too much.
I am not against changing the perception of this audience to match reality and to get them to see that software freedom is important. However, this takes time and persistence.
Digital Citizen
Honestly, you'd think the Slashdot editors would have realised this by now... it's only Windows that gets viruses. Linux (and OSX) are immune to this problem.
/claps hand to forehead
JJ