oiaohm wrote: > Issue is under 12 months there will be no need for wine to be able to run anti-virus programs from a Linux point of view. Ie Linux will be able todo the job for it. > > But what about NOW. Waiting twelve months is a long time. > Wine does not really do windows permission structs that can redue risk of applications. Instead everything get told its admin > > This could be bad or it could be good. However, Wine itself is run in user space which may be a good thing. > Anti-viruses also will always miss a percentage. Sooner we get fully functional snaps-hotting as well the better. Ie the third layer good and regular back ups. > > True. That is why there is heuristic code in most modern anti-virus products. > Linux systems without wine I don't have to depend on hope. Ok People lose all non package install applications that were not on backups. There are ways to audit and clean data files. Ie remove all unknown executable parts. You can be sure at the end you did get it all. > > This is very true. However, blowing away programs and parts of the OS should not be a matter of routine unless you are testing, testing and more testing (I do this for a living). Ordinary users should not be, by a rule, deleting files all the time. > Windows is far to hard to audit. Simpler to nuke and start over with the windows parts. > > > Actually, if a Linux or Windows system gets 'infected' it gets 'blown away'. That is because you cannot ever be certain that all affected files were removed, no matter what OS. Now, you can image any OS and 'blow' it onto an empty hard drive. This is done all the time in industry. The point is that there is a complete product suite to monitor Windows systems, called SCCM/SCOM. I don't know of a similar product for Linux, but there has to be one. This is where money is really made.... However, I enjoy having the availability of Wine. James McKenzie > > > >
