Replies

> You know what’s worse than you blatant lies about what I said? It’s your condescension. And then of course you’re complete unwillingness to admit you were wrong. Here’s my last word, the proof that you’re a liar, the proof that I never said what you said I said, and the proof that you can’t admit you’re wrong: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2378046/posts?page=46#46 All OSes have the problem, maybe not as bad as Windows but they still have it.

Look, I apologize for the condescension, but my god, man, please try to understand something:

The point is not that attacks exist. Of course they do. We all agree that they do, against all systems. Lay that one down, we agree.
The point is that they are INEFFECTIVE against a very robust system like Unix, yet EFFECTIVE against comparatively non-robust Windows, still after all this time and improvement.

That's all I've been trying to say. There are NO EFFECTIVE viruses for Unix or OS-X. A properly patched Unix system is robust -- it doesn't have the problem. A properly patched Windows system is still vulnerable to tons of viruses -- it still has the problem. That's what matters, man. That was the point of the article, and the point of the thread. Try to get this, please, I'll say it again:

Attacks exist, for all systems.
What matters is only whether they are effective at damaging your system. If you repel them successfully, they are not a problem for you.

You keep talking about attacks that don't work against Unix. WHO BLOODY CARES ABOUT THE ONES THAT DON'T WORK??? They don't work, they don't matter, they're NOT A PROBLEM. Sheesh.

I never talked about attacks. I simply pointed out that malware exists for ALL platforms and that platforms CAN be hit. And all your lies, your condescension and now your yelling doesn’t change what I said or the simple truth that the problem of malware is universal in its presence, all that changes is the level of vulnerability. And if you think there are no effective viruses against Unix you’re an idiot.