How do I download using Linux?

I tried to download Yahoo Messenger 11, Avast Antivirus, Malwarebytes, but this is what comes up.


Blocked: wine start/unix

The file is not marked as executable. If this was downloaded or copied from an untrusted source, it may be dangerous to run.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

I tried to download Yahoo Messenger 11, Avast Antivirus, Malwarebytes, but this is what comes up.

Are you trying to get those programs to run on your Linux computer? Why? I mean... why would you need that stuff?

What distro are you using?

Try making sure you download the LINUX version (if there is one) of any program you want to run.  You cannot expect Windows programs to run seamlessly (or at all) on Linux, or vice versa.

You cannot expect Windows programs to run seamlessly (or at all) on Linux, or vice versa.

I'd go so far as to say that if you are trying to run any windows program on Linux at all (and feel there is no "alternative"), it might be a good time to reevaluate why you are using Linux.

Here is a good place to start. 
http://lifehacker.com/5590624/lifehacker-pack-for-linux-our-list-of-the-best-linux-downloads

I'd go so far as to say that if you are trying to run any windows program on Linux at all (and feel there is no "alternative"), it might be a good time to reevaluate why you are using Linux.

Good call, but possibly a user at this level is not attempting a paradigm shift...

Avast Antivirus, Malwarebytes, but this is what comes up.

You don't use that on Linux. That's part of the reasons for using Linux.

You don't use that on Linux. That's part of the reasons for using Linux.

That's hardly a reason to use Linux. It's just FUD to try to get people to use it.

That's hardly a reason to use Linux. It's just FUD to try to get people to use it.

It's not FUD. You don't need that software on Linux because windows malware doesn't work on Linux. That's not FUD, that's a fact.

It's not FUD. You don't need that software on Linux because windows malware doesn't work on Linux. That's not FUD, that's a fact.

No. Linux malware works on Linux. There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that Microsoft Windows software faces; this is commonly attributed to the malware's lack of root access and fast updates to most Linux vulnerabilities. The number of malicious programs — including viruses, Trojans, and other threats — specifically written for Linux has been on the increase in recent years. Linux fans frequently deride Windows as being malware-ridden, while claiming their favorite operating system is free from such threats. That simply isn't true. Linux users who believe they can't be infected by malware are simply wrong.

No. Linux malware works on Linux.

Did I say it didn't? I said windows malware won't and the majority of malware is written for windows.

Did I say it didn't? I said windows malware won't and the majority of malware is written for windows.

So are you saying that statistically a Linux machine is safer?

Yes. It is not safer by design, but because it is less popular.

Yes. It is not safer by design, but because it is less popular.

That's a good point, but I doubt that this is the main reason that Linux is safer than Windows.

but I doubt that this is the main reason that Linux is safer than Windows.

Because it's not. And using the word "safer" is an ambiguous weasel word that takes on any number of definitions to serve the purposes of the person making the claim. Portable goalposts, really.

Yes. It is not safer by design, but because it is less popular.

False.  It is "safer" by design, with a far more restrictive security model than Windows has traditionally used.  If you also use SELinux, Windows basically can't touch Linux, for security.

False.  It is "safer" by design, with a far more restrictive security model than Windows has traditionally used.

Is this the standard FOSS tactic of comparing modern Linux distros with Windows 98? NT has had ACLs, which are far better than anything implemented in SELinux (and are pretty much what SELinux is trying to emulate) since 1993, and Vista changed the default system setup so that the user is no longer running as an administrator all the time, which does loads. One could even argue that NT is closer to being "inherently" secure since security was actually given heavy consideration during development, whereas for Linux it was just a matter of doing what worked and SELinux having to be patched onto it to get the basic security models that we've taken for granted on Windows for the last 19 or so years.

If you also use SELinux, Windows basically can't touch Linux, for security.

Saying Linux is "safer" by design is saying that it is "inherently" secure by nature, which is a fallacy. With few exceptions (EROS and other capability based systems) There is no such thing as "inherently" secure software. It's just another term in the FOSS dictionary of weasel words. It's funny because SELinux just barely puts the *nix security model on par with what Windows has had since NT 3.1. And Linux wasn't "designed" for security by ANY stretch of the imagination, so it is neither inherently secure nor secure by design. The fact that SELinux even exists is a testament to how it wasn't designed with security in mind. It was designed to simply be a UNIX-like kernel for x86 machines. That's it.

Either way, the default configurations of most distros tell a different tale. 15 Minute sudo sessions, and the OpenSSL fiasco for example. The fact that kernel.org was hacked a few months ago; not sure how that would happen if the system it ran was "secure by design".

Neither system is more secure. Security depends on the user and the people administrating the machines configuration, regardless of the Operating System. (excepting, again, capability based systems)

Is this the standard FOSS tactic of comparing modern Linux distros with Windows 98?

No.

No.

In that case, the comparison is invalid for the reasons I noted.

In that case, the comparison is invalid for the reasons I noted.

T'isn't.   

Anyway... Don't rack your brain over it. Simply use Avast! for Linux.
Tadaa!

Anyway... Don't rack your brain over it. Simply use Avast! for Linux.

Why?

May I ask:
Why did it take 21 posts to tell the OP the answer?

May I ask:
Why did it take 21 posts to tell the OP the answer?

The question was pretty clearly answered early on.