Remember that a distribution is just a collection of applications that run on the GNU/Linux kernel.
The kernel is simply "Linux", there's no such thing as a "GNU/Linux" kernel. "GNU/Linux" would refer to the whole distribution (Linux kernel + GNU system).
(The whole naming controversy is really rather ridiculous. . . .)
Heh yeah, I agree, and why I made the typo I normally know not to
It is interesting, because Stallman originally raised the objections and introduced the "controversy" because calling the whole dist "Linux" offered no reognition for all non-kernel contributors.
But these days I reckon the vast majority of linux users aren't kernel aware and so would be less aware of the kernel contributions and more aware of the distribution itself. Kinda a turnabout.
I am sure a lot of people don't distinguish between Linux and Ubuntu, let alone the arbitrary line between the kernel and GNU.
Only really for two reasons:
- AV vendors aren't going to turn down a sale if you're offering them money,
- It's useful to do virus checking on Linux servers to protect Windows clients.
On a pure client type Linux system like this, and one that's not even x86, there is no significant virus threat, and no need for AV.
Only really for two reasons:
- AV vendors aren't going to turn down a sale if you're offering them money,
- It's useful to do virus checking on Linux servers to protect Windows clients.
On a pure client type Linux system like this, and one that's not even x86, there is no significant virus threat, and no need for AV.
Whether it's Linux or not, there's still threat of getting attacked.
There's probably a way to port AntiVir to N900, seeing as it works on Linux's OS.
There is a possibility of getting attacked on Linux, but the threats are different, and not the sort of thing that Windows style AV software is any use against.
There are threats, there is not a significant virus threat.
