Read a blog posting on one of the planets that I subscribe, either Debian, Fedora, or Ubuntu that questions why Windows 7 should still need a virus program. It touts how great Linux is due to it not needing a virus program.
why is it that in the year 2009, Microsoft cannot make operating systems that do not ever need anti-virus software? It cannot build any operating system that is safe and virus-proof?
The question may better be asked is why do the people who make viruses and malware target the Windows Operating System insted of the Linux eco-system? Could it be that Linux now has a whopping 1% market share compared to the rest of the Operating Systems out there? Could it be the people who fall to most virus/malware would run the most dominate operating system type out there?
My parents use Windows, they have no interest in running Linux, in fact I don’t want to “convert” them to Linux. Mostly it is because I don’t want to try and support thier needs. My dad does a lot of photo editing with the different Adobe products, he has some books, went to a class on using the products, etc and I don’t want to have to be the one who needs to find the best OSS product out there for him. There are other programs that just run correctly with Windows XP/Vista they are not interested in learning a new product.
But they need virus/malware protection. Why? Simple, the people who write these target Windows users. Because they can make money off them. Also remember there are more flaws in OEM software in the WIndows world then on the OS itself.
Am I suprised Windows 7 is recommending Anti Virus? No, I am glad it gives me a warning when I don’t have a product out there