It’s not necessary. You can not install an anti-virus or any kind of security. You can work without it. But if something happens, you will be very likely held liable.
So it absolutely makes sense to install an anti-virus software if your insurance policy or maybe even your contracts with customers require it. You don’t install the anti-virus to protect from viruses, you install it to comply with the contract. That is very sensical. Not obliging by the rules of a contract is, on the other hand, very non-sensical.
Every technical person knows hat anti-virus doesn’t do shit. The policies requiring the use of anti-virus software is non-sensical, I agree with that. But installing software you need in order to not get sued if something happens is very very very sensical.
That is completely irrelevant. At the end of the day, microsoft porting windows defender to linux makes sense because there are rules and regulations in place that can be fulfilled by having an anti-virus. That was all I was talking about.
I absolutely agree that, from a technical standpoint, it’s useless beyond imagination. But that’s not the point when you have to comply with rules.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying necessarily, but I feel like you’re giving Microsoft too much credit here. There are anti virus solutions on Linux. This isn’t a thing they’re doing because they see an unserved market and a new way to make money. This is a thing they’re doing to get a foot in the door with orgs that are switching away from Microsoft products to Linux (like many EU orgs recently), so they can try and draw them back into a 365 subscription or whatever.
So, yes, some businesses may need an anti virus solution due to contractual stupid reasons, but that isn’t what makes Defender on Linux “sensible” for anyone except for the Microsoft salesperson.
Fair point, but the actual use is still nonsensical, even if required by rules of insurance policies. That makes it necessary, not “sensical”.
It’s not necessary. You can not install an anti-virus or any kind of security. You can work without it. But if something happens, you will be very likely held liable.
So it absolutely makes sense to install an anti-virus software if your insurance policy or maybe even your contracts with customers require it. You don’t install the anti-virus to protect from viruses, you install it to comply with the contract. That is very sensical. Not obliging by the rules of a contract is, on the other hand, very non-sensical.
Every technical person knows hat anti-virus doesn’t do shit. The policies requiring the use of anti-virus software is non-sensical, I agree with that. But installing software you need in order to not get sued if something happens is very very very sensical.
Necessary from a legal point of view, not technical. Or regulatory maybe.
That is completely irrelevant. At the end of the day, microsoft porting windows defender to linux makes sense because there are rules and regulations in place that can be fulfilled by having an anti-virus. That was all I was talking about.
I absolutely agree that, from a technical standpoint, it’s useless beyond imagination. But that’s not the point when you have to comply with rules.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying necessarily, but I feel like you’re giving Microsoft too much credit here. There are anti virus solutions on Linux. This isn’t a thing they’re doing because they see an unserved market and a new way to make money. This is a thing they’re doing to get a foot in the door with orgs that are switching away from Microsoft products to Linux (like many EU orgs recently), so they can try and draw them back into a 365 subscription or whatever.
So, yes, some businesses may need an anti virus solution due to contractual stupid reasons, but that isn’t what makes Defender on Linux “sensible” for anyone except for the Microsoft salesperson.