On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: > Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ? Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-) I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on... Valeri > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning <centos at u62.u22.net> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >>>> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>>>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >>>>> "enumerate >>>>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >>>>> future. >>>> >>>> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the >>>> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only >>>> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >>>> >>> >>> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. >> >> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA >> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA >> authorities. >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++