Reply to this and the kinds..
Its wonderful how the highly literate and even the ones considered to be belonging to the policy making cult, who do rigorous analysis of things and subjects of wide variety, end up coming to such ill-informed (should I say insane?) conclusions and opinions when it comes to simple computer security from viruses, trojans and spywares. Even the computerized CAT could not survive such attacks. Why not just use a system that isn't vulnerable to the viruses and is just simply more secure than anything else in its class? Its a 3 decade old fact that Unix like architecture/systems are highly immune to virus attacks. And it is not the lesser user spread causing less viruses being created but the simple architectural design that prevents the harmful program's actions. Let it be any of the Gnu/Linux distributions, Mac OS(again unix like) or any Unix, they are all immune to most of the security problems and many of them are very much desktop user friendly.
By the way, I was told in my 8th class that there exist evil minded psychopaths who create viruses just to enjoy the destruction of computers. I still cannot believe that they are able to create an industry on their own. Do they really exist?
Existence of internet criminals and crackers is sensible to believe, but psychopaths?
Its a high time that people realize that they are being fooled and its a high time for companies to realize that they cannot fool people forever.
Why spend on and trouble yourself with anti-viruses, and still be vulnerable to those viruses that are still not created and prevented by the current anti-virus programs? Why not just make all the viruses void altogether?
[P.S. Language in this post might be harsh, but that is the mildest I could express after hearing same things over and again from both the software and management gurus.]