Comodo antivirus for Linux
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Hello to all Trisquel Community,
I am new in the forum and New in town.
The only antivirus for Linux computers I know is Comodo Antivirus for Linux as of the link below:
https://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/antivirus-for-linux.php?track=8251
I have a few questions about the antivirus to use for the Trisquel 7 Operating System:
1)is Trisquel 7 a 32 bit or 64 bit system?,
2)which operating system do I have to choose to install Comodo Antivirus for Linux on Trisquel 7? and
3)alternatively, are there other antiviruses to use for Trisquel 7?
If you check the "Choose your operating system" box of the above Comodo weblink, you may choose the Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Redhart Entreprise, Fedora, CentOS, SUSE Linux Entreprice and OpenSUSE operating systems, but not Trisquel 7.
Thanks!
New in town
I am a member!
1. Both. You can check by typing "uname -r" into a terminal
2. Either. Just make sure it's the Ubuntu version and you pick the number of "bits" to match your Trisquel install
3. AVG and Sophos support GNU/Linux as well I think
If you want to stay "fully-free" (and you should, because you're using Trisquel!) you're better off with ClamTk. You can install it through the "Add/Remove Software Applications" panel in the Start menu.
I have some more thoughts on whether you need GNU/Linux anti-virus here: https://bobstechsite.com/make-gnu-linux-desktop-secure/. But the tl;dr version is keeping your system up-to-date and locking down your browser is far more effective on a GNU/Linux machine. (eg. install an ad-blocker, disable 3rd party cookies and disable JavaScript by default)
For home use you'd install AV on a GNU/Linux machine to prevent it becoming a "safe harbour" for Windows viruses. If you have a GNU/Linux-only network, you probably don't need AV.
bobstechsite, what I wrote to new in town is directed to you too.
Do not write about installing, using non libre software on this forum.
Do not encourage the use of non libre software.
I ask you to either write you redraw what you wrote about installing
the piece of non libre software. Or delete the part.
Hello bobstechsite,
thank you very much for your advice, comments and the attached link; I really appreciate it.
Until last year on my notebook I had the Ubuntu 16 operating system and I used the Comodo Antivirus for Linux.
Early this year I moved from Ubuntu 16 to Trisquel 7 operating system because of the privacy issues about Ubuntu you also wrote on this Trisquel forum.
For more information I'll also have a look at your https://www.bobstechsite.com website.
Many thanks again!
New in town
That's a proprietary program. I suggest you don't use it.
If you want an antivirus program, that's ClamAV. Look for "ClamTK" in the repo through Add/Remove Applications or Synaptic; it acts as a graphical frontend for ClamAV. But I should note that antivirus on GNU/Linux is not for your own protection; it's for the protection of Windows users. All viruses that currently exist for GNU/Linux are non-malicious proof-of-concept viruses, mostly because the techniques are ineffective. Actual threats for GNU/Linux are security vulnerabilities and rootkits, which antivirus software has nothing to do with.
Hello onpon4,
thank you very much for your really appreciated advice and suggestions.
On Trisquel 7 operating system I'll use ClamAV/ClamTK rather than Comodo for Linux antivirus.
> I am new in the forum and New in town.
Fantastic!
I suppose you noticed my sense of humor, don't you?
I sense great things. People call me and say I have the best senses.
I am a translator!
Not only you installed proprietary malware but you also enlarged your attack surface.
* every proprietary software is malware. Prove me wrong. PROTIP: you can't
** In order to work an antivirus needs full access to your machine, it needs root privileges and it is constantly and actively running in the background giving an attacker a huge opportunity to attack your system via antivirus itself :)
I suggest you now enter full masochistic mode and follow the following:
1 - Gutmann style shred every bit on your hard drive with 35 passes
2 - Fill the hardrive with smurf episodes until full to the last bit
3 - Install Gentoo
4 - Pray and Praise teh Gahnuu
5 - Repeat points 1 and 2
6 - Install Trisquel
(welcome to the forum!)
SuperTramp83,
I never met a person so dogmatic like you in the computer/software/Internet field; "every proprietor software is malware, devil, hell, Satan, a nightmare, it's the worst thing that may happen to your computer or smartphone, we are the best around".
If you read carefully my first message, I wrote "The only antivirus for Linux computers I know is Comodo Antivirus for Linux".
As Comodo antivirus is the only available antivirus for Linux, how could I choose another Linux compatible antivirus?
Please explain SmartestGuyAround aka SuperTramp83!
> "devil, hell, Satan, a nightmare, it's the worst thing that may happen to your computer or smartphone, we are the best around"
that escalated quickly
I am a translator!
>that escalated quickly
Right? :)
You were already told several times (by bobstechsite and onpon4) that ClamAV exists. It is free software. It is in Trisquel repository. And it aims at protecting Windows systems. So, no, Comodo is *not* the only available anti-virus that can be installed on GNU/Linux.
SuperTramp83 exaggerates a little. Proprietary software fall into two categories:
- known malware;
- maybe malware.
Without freedom 1, you can never be sure a proprietary program is not malware.
I am a translator!
>SuperTramp83 exaggerates a little.
No, I was **obviously** joking
>Without freedom 1, you can never be sure a proprietary program is not malware.
this!
> 1. When you go to a restaurant, do you consider every dish for which you are not given the recipe + the right to modify and redistribute it a "maybe poison"?
That's not quite the same thing. When you're given food at a restaurant, you're not given a recipe that you're not allowed to change; you're just given the result of a recipe. Visiting a restaurant (or eating processed food) is more like SaaSS than proprietary software. Proprietary software is like if they give you a recipe, but in a form that you can't read; you have to insert the recipe into some sort of complicated machine that makes the food for you, using processes that are nothing like the ones you would use to prepare food.
> How do you know 6*8=48?
Math is purely a human invention; it's just that this human invention is useful for understanding quantities. 6*8=48 because that's the rules of math: add eight to itself six times. With that rule, you get 48. It's the same with every number, and no, you don't have to verify them all. You can verify for yourself that the rules and methods yield consistent results, and that's one of the things math classes are supposed to teach. It's actually kind of lamentable that when faced with the hard stuff, we resort to calculators without even teaching students about the manual methods.
It is exactly the same thing.
Where is your copying machine for dishes, drinks and TV sets? I want one.
I gave you a detailed explanation as to why it's different, and your only response is a variant of "no it's not"? Why do you even bother responding if you're not going to actually refute my reasoning?
> In any case - you didn't even look at the essence of the questions which is the whole point.
Yes, I did. You're just looking for excuses to dismiss my arguments. I know what you're getting at. You're trying to prove that libre software ideals are impractical, and you're drawing false comparisons to food and math as a part of this. That's why I showed that these comparisons are nonsense.
If you're complaining that I didn't respond to everything in your long post, it's because I have very little spare time and I don't think your other points are worth the investment of time and effort needed to respond to them.
> The questions weren't even put to you specifically
No, they were put to someone who was joking and specifically told you so. That's why I didn't feel the need to refute every single thing you said. Just those two because they stood out to me.
Look, if you aren't willing to argue the point, then this conversation is worthless.
> 'maybe malware' which really means 'it is most certainly malware'
"Maybe" does not mean "most certainly".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maybe
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/certainly
Arguments can be extremely useful tools for strengthening each other's understanding. They can become unproductive when the parties involved are more interested in avoiding concessions than advancing, but there is nothing wrong with arguments themselves. Both you and onpon4 have been arguing, and that's fine. She just acknowledges that that's what it is.
If what you meant is indeed that these conversations are not advancing because others are indeed more interested in avoiding concessions, I would have to say that while any of us can be guilty of that at times, I seen some of this coming from your end as well. In general I think more benefit comes from assuming good faith, and I do not wish to offend you and risk you discontinuing the valuable information you have been providing about web browsers. However, it seems that there is one topic in which you end of going in circles with everyone with whom you discuss it. I think breaking down why this is happening will save time and energy for all of us. The general format is as follows:
(1) You make a comment implying that the free software movement is impractical/naive/hypocritical/etc.
(2) Someone explains why, although free software is imperfect, it is more trustworthy than proprietary software.
(3) You understandbly feel misunderstood, because you had not claimed that proprietary software was better. You clarify that while freedom 1 allows us as a community to study some code that we use, we cannot study all of it, and that it is impossible at this point to avoid all proprietary software.
(4) Someone notes that protecting yourself from some threats is better than accepting them, and that your only other option is to avoid all software.
(5) You evade (4) by either
(5a) generalizing with philosophical discussion to avoid specifics
(5b) saying that mitigation is not good enough and we need some "new" system
(5c) acccusing the other person of not understanding you or being disengenuous
(6) They respond by
(6a) getting caught up in the philosophical discussions, derailing the conversation
(6b) saying that we would use a better system if we had it but don't at this time
(6c) getting defenseive, derailing the conversation
(7b) You urge us to help come up with a better system, as if we aren't already thinking and wouldn't have already shared better ideas if we had them.
(8bi) In one instance this led to you creating a troll lounge thread that seemed interesting. I haven't checked back on it since my initial response but will get around to it. I'm not on the troll lounge mailing list so it's harder for me to keep track of threads there than with the main list.
(8bii) In most other circumstances, you have returned to step (5), dreailing the discussion.
(9) The discussion has been derailed.
(10) Repeat, either in the same thread or in a different thread on this forum.
I'm sure that you would frame this cycle a little differently. I don't claim to be perfectly objective. No one is. I certainly don't want to put all them blame on you. You must find steps (2), (4), amd (6) must be very frustrating. However, I think we can agree that some cycle resembling the above has taken place, and that we will just keep getting frustrated unless we break out of it or let it go for the time being. Personally, I do not think we will break out of it unless you refute or concede (4) without going to (5) or (7b). (7b) is asking us to refute (4) for you, and I would if I could. I hope you are right that there is a better way. While I think if you could refute (4) right now you would have already, I hope that eventually you or someone else can.
Until then, I would prefer to focus on the information you have been providing about browsers, and I think this would be a better use of your time as well. In the absence of a perfect solution for web browsing, the information you provide about our current options is much appreciated. I'm sorry that I haven't contributed more by replicating your tests yet. In fact, I'll accept blame for feeding the above cycle by spending more time responding to your posts that I disagree with without contributing anything new than I have responding to your more constructive posts, while hypocritically telling you to focus on the constructive ones. I've been following and valuing your tests, but have been waiting until I have a chance to contribute my own to respond in detail. Honestly, I probably could have learned how to run your tests in the time I've spent writing long and redundant posts. My bad. I hope to get around to it by next weekend.
Best,
Mason
> The questions were a reply to Magic Banana who wasn't.
Fair enough, I was mistaken on this point, then. I apologize.
> So to you a conversation is worthy only if it is an argument?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue
These are the relevant definitions for "argument" the way I am using the word:
* the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing
* a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
* a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
And the relevant definitions for "argue", the way I am using the word:
* to give reasons for or against something
* to give evidence of
* to consider the pros and cons of
* to prove or try to prove by giving reasons
So with that in mind, I suspect that you are instead using the word "argument" to mean "an angry quarrel or disagreement", which is not what is happening here, and then conflating that definition (which I am not referring to when I use the words "argue" and "argument") with my use of the words. I assume this is unintentional.
I have long grown weary of people who do this. It seems to be a common feature of young people these days to just immediately conflate the entire idea of argumentation with negativity and use this fallacy as an excuse to both refuse to argue anything, and demand for someone who is willing to argue to stop doing so. This is a destructive attitude, albeit one I assume is borne of ignorance rather than malice.
So with that all in mind, when we're talking about a topic that two people disagree about, then, yes, a conversation which does not include argumentation is worthless. If neither of us is presenting arguments for our respective positions, we are not going to get any better of an understanding of each other's positions, much less be convinced to change our minds.
> And intelligence means reading between the lines. Look at the overall attitude, don't just isolate a single word and analyze it separately.
You talk about context, but you yourself are ignoring the much larger context that the "maybe malware" description comes straight from RMS's talks, where he doesn't imply "potential malware" to mean "definitely malware" and typically even specifically clarifies that it doesn't mean the latter. Instead you're inventing your own interpretation out of thin air, directly contradicting the literal interpretation of what was said. "Reading between the lines" is not an excuse for building up strawmen.
Can't you see for yourself that it is 50/50 - it can be or not, so it is as much "maybe malware" as "maybe goodware".
It is not because there are only two possibilities, that "it is 50/50". For example, http://www.privmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wisec2015.pdf says:
Our analysis shows that 60% of the paid apps are connected to trackers that collect personal information compared to 85%–95% in free apps. We further show that approximately 20% of the paid apps are connected to more than three trackers. With tracking being pervasive in both free and paid apps, we then quantify the aggregated privacy leakages associated with individual users. Using the data of user installed apps of over 300 smartphone users, we show that 50% of the users are exposed to more than 25 trackers which can result in significant leakages of privacy.
The reported numbers, which are only dealing with tracking (no other type of malware), are necessarily lower bounds: proprietary apps that were not proven to be connected to trackers may be connected to (currently undiscovered) trackers.
To find out you must test it or even reverse engineer it.
Exactly. And that is unfair. With an access to the source code it is orders of magnitude easier to study a program. Discovering trackers is possible. Discovering a backdoor that is not frequently used is basically impossible without an access to the source code. Users should never be impeded to study what really does the software they run. They deserve free software.
> Can't you see for yourself that it is 50/50
> - it can be or not, so it is as much "maybe
> malware" as "maybe goodware".
As the article Magic Banana shared states, %60 of paid closed source software (85%-95% of freeware) contains malware. And this is quite sensible - it should be so.
If one is able to distribute a closed source software somehow, then one is in a position to exploit it, and there are a lot of incentives why one would want to do just that. (while the opposite is true for open source programs)
So, "maybe" should -logically- lean heavily towards "most". And indeed it does so, reportedly.
Not that it differs anything in the end at all. In this context, I think it sounds rather pedantic to discuss what "maybe" may be.
I am a translator!
Meh, this is to Joe, and it's about 'not being able to exercise freedom 1'
Do note that freedom 1 is rarely, and for clear reasons of lack of knowledge, time and limited human capacity, exercised individually but rather collectively. A developer will think 10 times before shipping anything malicious in their source code. What you should worry about is the binaries you commonly install. Do they really correspond to the source? How much exactly are you trusting the maintainers of your distribution?
I am a translator!
>I doubt that.
And that's good.
>But do you really have 1000 programmers to check that program
I guess you don't but I also guess you do have thousands of users who pay enough attention and care enough as to use the tools ('member when we used tcpdump for firecox?) they have at hand to check and see whether a software is doing something suspicious/misbehaving and then they can also say 'holly cannoli, why this, let's check the source maybe, or let's contact someone so they can check'.
With proprietary sosware you can not, you can only suck it up. The situation is not ideal, but it's the best we can.
I do strongly believe the following, I also believe one does not need to be a genius or a programmer to understand it: the more lines of code the greater the possibility of bugs.
Just as with normal written text, the larger is the text you rote the larger the probability of typos, grammatical errors etc
I am a member!
> Visiting a restaurant (or eating processed
> food) is more like SaaSS than proprietary software. Proprietary software is
> like if they give you a recipe, but in a form that you can't read; you have
> to insert the recipe into some sort of complicated machine that makes the
> food for you, using processes that are nothing like the ones you would use to
> prepare food.
Good comparison! I agree!
The four freedoms are for functional works. And if somebody is working for you (providing you a service), she is entitled to control *her* work. Not you. For instance, I do not deserve the control over the software that runs in the taxi/bus/train/plane. It is not my business. The owner of the taxi/bus/train/plane should control that software. It should be free software.
Software running in one's car (I do not own one, btw) or in one's processors should be controlled by its user. It should be free software. We should fight/work for the control over the work we do with *our* cars/processors. Not surrender the freedoms we have because, in another area, we do not have them.
"Nonfree" and "patented" are two different things: the copyright law and the patent law have very little in common. Patents on software are a disaster: they prevent innovation, the exact opposite of what the patent system is supposed to be for (whereas the copyright law aims to protect a precisely-defined work). I am not knowledgeable about patents on drugs. Don't they help us get new useful drugs?
"6*8=48" is a theorem. What axiom of arithmetic are you rejecting?
Studying/modifying a large code base is much work. Too much for one single person. That is why the control on our software needs to be collective too. It is the reason for freedom 3. It is not perfect but it is the best we have. The best solution should be adopted. Even if it is not perfect. I doubt a perfect solution exists.
> Again: should/could != is. Still you sit in that vehicle and ride, you turn
> on that radio (proprietary chips inside) and listen to music (copyrighted
> non-copyleft material).
Yes, and before libreboot existed RMS must have used a proprietary BIOS. If instead he had refused to touch a computer and advocated that others to the same, much free software would never have been created, perhaps including libreboot. It is the creation and use of proprietary software that is unethical, not its use. If circumstances coerce you into using it, your are a victim and this is unfortunate, but sometimes there is no other option. The solution is to fight for the freedoms we don't have, not give up the ones we do in order to be more consistently oppressed.
> Exactly: the fight is for CONTROL, not for FREEDOM. Two very different and
> incompatible things.
Freedom is absolutely about control. Freedom isn't sitting around inert so that no one has to exercise control over a situtation. We must make decisions to interact with the world. They question is, who makes decisions for you? When you make them for yourself you are free. When someone else places restrictions on your control over these decisions, you are a slave. Your definiton of freedom, lack of *all* restrictions (imposed or natural) is a less common but valid use of the word. However, it is not useful in this conversation because it is morally irrelevant. If a man is blind, the fact that he cannot see is unfortunate but not a violation of his freedom in a moral sense so there is nothing to argue about. If a man is pysically able to see, but his government forces him to wear a blindfold 12 hours a day, then even though he is able to exercise his ability to see more than the blind man, his restictions are an immoral violation of his freedom. If a man is not required to wear a blindfold but chooses to do so anyway, this is not a violation of his freedom because he controls when he may use his ability to see.
> Would you give it to the dying person or philosophize about how a particular
> person defined what freedom is.
Give them the drug of course. The restrictions placed on the drug are the moral violation, not its use. We should fight these restrictions, at minimum so that the patent-holders cannot use their monopoly to price gouge, but that is no reason to let anyone die in the meantime.
> You see - one can
> believe in a great ideal, fight for a cause, for control over one's device
> forever but that is nothing. A drop in the ocean.
I agree. The bad guys are winning by a lot and may keep winning until it is too late. It is important not to underestimate them and assume that things will eventually get better, but we also can't let the enormity of what we're up against paralyze us into inaction.
> You say community control but control is centralized. If tomorrow Google
> decides to shift the search results so that ideas about FOSS start to sink
> slowly and ideas about something else go up - the whole matter of FOSS will
> gradually start to sink too. The drop in the ocean will shrink more even
> though it may remain. That is the big problem - we (in the ocean drop, who
I'm not sure if you are saying that control is centralized inherently, or is currently centralized in our society. I use centralization/decentralization to describe the concentration or distribution of control. If this is what you mean, then yes we live in a highly centralized world. Google's ability to do as you describe is indeed terrifying.
> The drop must explode
> through some radical change.
Unfortunately the United States military makes this strategy unviable. Working to advance the cause of freedom within the system is a flawed approach as well, but is less futile.
> > I doubt a perfect solution exists.
>
> Why? Have you looked for any?
It is not productive to tell someone that what they are doing is not good enough without suggesting an improvement. Incremental improvements are a path toward a better solution. Being able to jump to a perfect solution would of course be objectively better. RMS, the FSF, and many free software supporters have given and continue to give thought to better solutions. Are you really under the impression that the reason no one has found a perfect solution because you are the first person to wish there was one? In the meantime, we do not let perfect become the enemy of the good and undermine efforts that are the best we have right now. It is very unlikely that a perfect solution that no one has been able to see exists, and the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Any ideas you have are more than welcome, but it only makes sense to give up on an approach *after* finding a better one, not *before*.
An (as always) excellent post by mason! Especially:
The solution is to fight for the freedoms we don't have, not give up the ones we do in order to be more consistently oppressed.
The four freedoms aim to control, the best we can, the functional works we do by ourselves. Nothing more (but that is a lot!). They are no silver bullet against all "the terrible things going on in the world" (the mass surveillance, the filter bubble, Spectre and Meltdown, etc.). As far as I know, nobody pretends that. In particular, not RMS: http://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/rms_en.webm (a recent recording of his "A Free Digital Society" talk, at my university, where I invited him).
By confusing material works and immaterial works, freedom 0 and privacy, patents and copyright, patents on software and patents on drugs, local programs and online services, ..., heyjoe cannot properly study any specific problem. Even less fight against them. He ends up only complaining that the world is a terrible place. Worse, he apparently blames the four freedom for not being a perfect solution to all "the terrible things going on in the world" and therefore considers them moot.
For example, not willing to separately study patents on drugs and on software, heyjoe writes:
Patents do _not_ prevent invention.
It is certainly true in some area. It may be true for drugs (I do not know). In the software area, it is definitely wrong. http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html (a 29-minute video) and http://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/wpa.mp3 (a 59-minute investigative-radio report) are the best mainstream resources on that subject, imho.
The four freedoms do not solve that problem. Software patents prevent everybody writing software, free or proprietary, from innovating without risking a law suit. The whole society ultimately pays the cost of software patentability: a financial cost (going to patent lawyers and to patent trolls) and a reduced innovation.
I am a translator!
>They all proprietary design and have computers full of proprietary hardware and software, so according to your conclusion - 'maybe malware'.
Well, your reasoning is not very sound here. I don't know about Bannanna but I am talking about a computer I have direct control upon. It is very different. I don't drink Cola, or its Nazi variant 'Fanta' btw :P
I also have never said that anything other than software has to be free. I might think that, but I have never said that food or planes or buses or grandmas have to be free or that I have to need a recipe for them.
Trusting the free software community or trusting one single proprietary software company is indeed analog to trusting all citizens (democracy) or trusting one single dictator. You can say it is the same because it is trusting in both cases. It is not. The users/citizens deserves the control on their computing/government. They deserve to decide for themselves. Dictator/proprietary software developers deny that control, which is unjust. That does not mean free software/democracy is perfect. Even less that it is the solution to all problems. But that is certainly not a reason to "remove the 'ethics' and 'freedom'".
Your post is in response of that of SuperTramp83, who wrote:
I don't know about Bannanna but I am talking about a computer I have direct control upon.
Indeed, *we* are talking about software in computers we have personal control upon. My previous post even started like that:
The four freedoms aim to control, the best we can, the functional works we do by ourselves. Nothing more (but that is a lot!). They are no silver bullet against all "the terrible things going on in the world" (the mass surveillance, the filter bubble, Spectre and Meltdown, etc.). As far as I know, nobody pretends that.
https://trisquel.info/forum/comodo-antivirus-linux#comment-126752
Yet, your reply is about "warfare", "spying" and "mass destruction". And now, I am the one taking your words out of context?!
I use the third person to talk about you if my post replies to somebody else. In particular, https://trisquel.info/forum/comodo-antivirus-linux#comment-126752 is a reply to mason. "You" would stand for "mason" in that post.
I am a member!
> 1. When you go to a restaurant, do you consider every dish for which you are
> not given the recipe + the right to modify and redistribute it a "maybe
> poison"?
I do. Lard is poison.
> 3. Do you ever sit in a modern car, bus, train, ship, airplane without being
> given the full engineering blueprints, specs, software code etc?
I'm not the one doing the driving, so the computing involved in
transportation is not mine. Not my computing, not my problem.
Also, you're conflating several issues which I have no time to explain
and formulate a good response right now.
> 4. Suppose you are in a critical situation where a beloved person needs
> medication to save his life. The only available medication is patented
> (non-free). What will you do? - Preach about freedom or let the poor guy
> drink the pill so he can stay alive?
This is also conflating several issues that are not the same as having
control over your actions in the digital world.
> 5. What actual value have FSF-freedoms when your CPU runs proprietary
> microcode?
Microcode is a serious problem. You should not install proprietary
microcode on your machine, but already-existing microcode that cannot be
removed is acceptable for now.
> 6. How do you know 6*8=48? Have you really placed 6 things on 8 places and
> counted that? (Extrapolate on this)
More appeals to absurdity.
> 7. What is the proof that every single line of code of a multi million lines
> FOSS program has been verified by experts who are independent from the
> original vendor?
The proof is the same as any scientific proof: peer review. This is why
we have collective freedoms 2 and 3, not just individual freedoms 0 and
1.
> You see... FSF's rules are not almighty and they can't be used as a reference
> to explain each and every technological event.
However, they can be a reference for computer user rights.
> Lard is poison.
I know this is off-topic, but I would dispute that. Do some research on the history of the lipid hypothesis, which is what you're referring to; there's really not any evidence behind the idea. It's more likely excess sugar consumption and, to a lesser extent, other excess carbohydrate consumption, which can be blamed for health problems that fat has been blamed for.
This is a decent starting point:
I am a translator!
>I know this is off-topic
And what exactly would make you think that?
You are both on Jodienda's list, I hope you're happy now. :)
I am a member!
On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 18:53 +0100, name at domain wrote:
> > Lard is poison.
>
> I know this is off-topic, but I would dispute that. Do some research on the
> history of the lipid hypothesis, which is what you're referring to; there's
> really not any evidence behind the idea. It's more likely excess sugar
> consumption and, to a lesser extent, other excess carbohydrate consumption,
> which can be blamed for health problems that fat has been blamed for.
>
> This is a decent starting point:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0
You have blasphemed against our Lord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who
in His Infinite Starchiness gave us energy and life.
May His Noodly Appendage strike you down and curse you with panda eyes
for your starch-slandering ways.
Ramen.
--
Caleb Herbert
OpenPGP public key: http://bluehome.net/csh/pubkey
...
Touche.
> If you read carefully my first message, I wrote "The only antivirus for Linux computers I know is
> Comodo Antivirus for Linux".
That is not how it works on this forum.
On this forum you do not ask questions about how to install or use non libre software.
You cannot write anything which encourages the use of non libre software. And
trisquel members are not allowed to answer you such questions.
They can tell you about libre software options.
You cannot say, there is no libre software option, you have to get advice about
a non free software solution. In this case clam is an option. If there
is no libre software option to one of your questions, you must accept there
is no option at all in terms of this forum.
This is not to be harsh on you. You just joined this forum and you make mistakes. If they
are blunders no one should hold it against you. I have several times asked prohibited
questions about non libre software. It was due to blunders. I was rightfully corrected.
The best thing you can do, is to write you were wrong and ask people to disregard your
post.
Every time you want to write something on this forum, verify that it not about installing,
using or encouraging non libre software.
Everybody has to adhere to this demand, because else this forum's task dilutes.
> SuperTramp83, I never met a person so dogmatic like you in the
> computer/software/Internet field
He is right in correcting you, because you infringed on forum rules.
I am a translator!
>He is right in correcting you, because you infringed on forum rules.
I was also clearly joking. I made a startup recently, it's called 'I sell you some sense of humor'. If the OP is interested he can throw me a mail.
Just to be clear and correct:
I NEVER said on this forum "I need help to install Comodo for Linux"; instead I only wrote "The only antivirus for Linux computers I know is Comodo Antivirus for Linux".
Do you notice the difference?
So please be honest with what you say about others and don't invent things I have never written on this forum.
Also thank you to the forum members bobstechsite and onpon4 for suggesting me AVG, ClamAV/ClamTK and Sophos as alternative to Comodo Antivirus for Linux.
suptertramp, when you correct people you are right in doing so.
If you correct new members, would you consider a more explanatory approach?
If a new member is infringing forum rules it likely could be due to a
blunder. Not being accustomed with this forum, a new member may
get defensive if he is being harshly corrected.
You could just use ClamAV like many suggested.
Please lets maintain the manners inside this forum.
I am a member!
That program is most likely proprietary software, and I urge you not to
accept its license or become subject to it, and I will not aid you in
doing this harm to your personal autonomy.
Anti-virus is not the big security software you'd want on a GNU+Linux
system, anyway.
What you want is a rootkit checker and authentication of all running
software. Your package manager, APT, already verifies that your
software came from a trusted source and has not been tampered to harm
your computer.
If you get all your software only from Trisquel repos, and you check for
rootkits, and you don't run servers on your machine, your system will be
safe.
Install the rootkit checker:
sudo apt install chkrootkit
I am a member!
I tried this and it flagged the "suckit" rootkit as a false positive as per https://askubuntu.com/questions/597432/do-i-have-a-rootkit-suckit-detected-in-sbin-init-chkutmp-errors/
Thanks for the suggestion though as it led me to rkhunter :)
I am a translator!
rkhunter, especially in its newer versions is indeed much better
I am a translator!
Could you all please stop arguing? My head hurds. My limited capacity cranium itches. That's not good. I'm extremely annoyed. Any of you who adds any new comment in this thread will see me personally appearing (tense, naked and furious) in their room with a hard copy of Comodo TotallyNotMalwareTrustUsSucker Antivirus ready to interject and inject. Trust me when I say it is not a very desirable experience and you DON'T want to go there. You have been warned. If double infringement, I will also bring Jodienda with me to make sure you meet your flying spaghetti creator in no time. Jodienda is particularly vicious and terrifying, you DON'T want to see the upset version of Jodienda
Who is "JODIENDA" ? Is it a female version of trisquel?
I'm ""'"jodiendo"""" the REGISTER male NICKNAME ON TRISQUEL FORUMS.
BUT TO USE THE WORD """"jODIENDA"""" OR LOOKING FOR SOMEONE NICKNAMED """JODIENDA""" in trisquel login forums it is a different matter.
for those interest, here is a quick definition:
the word usage for "Jodienda" is something that is a nuisance or a pain in the neck.
beware the word is used among the Spanish speaking Latinos and Spaniards. the conquistadors Spaniards brought and taught that word as part of their culture.
the word Is here to stay, for anything else just google it.
comprendes? y no jodas mas!
respectfully
jodiendo
I am a translator!
sweet sweet Jodienda :)
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires