To me it seems the "right" thing to do, but I accept my views, like everyone elses are not always shared alike - Would be kinda boring if we all agreed the same things.
That's fine, but what seems to be the "right thing to do" to you, may be wrong, or even deeply offensive to some (really). Your argument seems to come from the perspective that we as Linux users need to accommodate MS. I'm sure you don't mean this, but that is how it will come across to many.
- AV software is hotly discussed on most forums. It usually ends up many pages long with arguments from both sides of the field.
- AV software is hardly bloat-worthy on the majority of Linux installs. My BitDefender barely consumes 8MB of RAM - hardly a killer on any PC with 1GB of RAM or more.
It may be hotly discussed on Windows forums or forums like techspot, but not on linux forums. It's probably one of the least discussed subjects.
I've been at the debian forums for four years and have never seen anyone recommending AV software to a desktop user.
I've also never seen AV software recommended to desktop users at other sites such as linuxquestions, debianhelp, fedora forums and others.
The only other place, besides this, I've seen AV software recommended is at the UF and this is worrying but hardly surprising. The only advice I can give you is to take what you read at the UF with a large pinch of salt. The UF is a place where myths, canonical corporate policies and other fallacy are propagated all too readily to suite a corporate marketing agenda. It was a great site back in 2006 when I joined, but had long since turned into totalitarian and oppressive place when I 'left'. BTW if you ever manage to tear yourself away from the 'buntu family, it will be nice to see you at the debian forums some time. You will learn more from using debian in 2 weeks than you would learn from using Ubuntu for 2 years. No exaggeration.
It makes very little (none noticeably) different to resource demands in the majority of cases on Linux installs, in my experience, with all different kinds of hardware. Most AV's are well streamlined, take sod all resources, and you barely notice they're even there in all fairness.
That's true in a sense, but you're assuming that everyone runs up to date hardware, which is a fallacy. You're also forgetting the cpu cycles that AV programs often use up due to active scanning. Yes you can turn off active scanning on most AV programs, but then what's the point? However big or small a program is, if you don't need to run it, why run it?
I still also feel that the sensible option is to run AV software on every desktop, regardless of OS. Just because your running it, doesn't mean it has to compromise the performance of your desktop.
It will compromise performance if it's running as with any process, you can call this negligible but anyway - as above.
I realise Windows is a magnet for virus/malware, and that is why so many companies compete from what is an essentially huge market for Windows users, at home and commercially. I never doubted, nor argued this to begin with.
As I've said before, Windows users install
their own AV programs. Running an AV program on your Linux box, for the offchance that you might inadvertently email someone over a virus is overkill. It's up to the individual user of course and I'm not suggesting for one minute you should not be running an AV, but it should never be touted on messageboards to new Linux users as the done thing, standard procedure or "sensible".
That would be rather outrageous. I don't somehow believe (given your comments below) that you think I'd suggest that, so I'll put that down to "effect".
No intention to cause offence, but it's as outrageous as your proposal that every OS, windows or not, should run an AV program to protect windows and it's hapless users. That is outrageous.
Maybe it is needless, but as I've understood it (with my limited commerical knowledge I will admit) this has always been the case of both the server, and networked computers having AV.
In a commercial environment, with 100% windows servers and workstations AV both server and client side is essential - no doubt about it. A network admin that doesn't install a fully supported AV package won't be in his job for long.
Where the servers are Linux based, server side AV is still required for file sharing and the mail server(s). For those rare cases where every server and workstation is Linux based, yes this is the rare case where you argument does hold some validity, every server and workstation would still need AV, because clients could still be emailing files outside their organisation (emailing binaries happens much more often in a corporate setting).
For the home user that does not do any of this, nor who is liable for any damage caused, AV is generally not needed.
To me its not about being right or wrong, its about a bit of both. You have very valid points in all your posts, but I also feel that some of mine are very valid too. It also makes the discussion stimulating, rather than sounding like a rant, which my comments are most certainly not meant to come across as.
I appreciate your thoughtful sentiments in your last paragraph though, thank you.
No problem.