Looking for better detection on linux

I've been using linux around 18 months and in that time I've always used Klamav (on demand only) or F-prot or nothing.
I prefer using something gui based and klamav is nice to use but after some reading I've noticed that clamav's detection rates in various different types of tests is pretty bad (klamav is just a front-end for clamav, as you may have guessed).
On top of this, I installed the clamav tests viruses and on suse it missed 2 of them the first time I tried it and 3 of them the next. On kanotix it also missed 2 of them but not the same ones as on suse.
The fact this happened tends to make me believe there is a flaw in the program itself.
I know these tests aren't the be all and end all but even still I'm looking for something else.
On windows I used to swear by avast and also sometimes used antivir.
Do their linux versions use the same engine and are they at all reliable?
I haven't really read up on antivirus programs on linux so I don't know if there are major differences to how they work on windows.
I have read various articles and forum posts about avg on linux and there seems to mixed opinions about it, some people say it's great and others say it's buggy won't update.
So basically, what I want to know is is Klamav/clamav really that bad and how does it compare to avg/avast/antivir?

 

I have Clam installed ... but I never use it. I just don't see the necessity for it - Linux malware is few and far between.

You can get frontends for both BitDefender and F-Prot @ KDE-Apps

I haven't tried any other AVs.

 

linux AVs mostly detect windows viruses anyways, but under windows clamav does have poor detection rates.

if u like avast for windows, u can try avast! Linux Home Edition

 

I wouldn't even bother installing an AV on Linux unless you're running a mail server on a network with Windows clients. The few viruses and other malware for Linux seem to be more proof-of-concept type things than actual threats. The ones I've read about you have to give the root password for it to execute, which nobody in their right mind would do.

The argument about avoiding sending email viruses and worms to your Windows friends isn't really relevant either. If you get an email with a weird attachment you wouldn't start sending it to your friends not knowing what it is, at least not if you want to keep them as friends

 

So why not F-prot ?

 

i have an f-prot Gtk front-end called XFPROT
http://web.tiscali.it/sharp/xfprot/

i don't understand why everyone says you don't need an AV if you use a Linux desktop because i thought the easiest directory to infect/erase is the home directory. the home directory is the only thing which can't be replaced in about 20 minutes.

even repos can become infected as happened to Mozilla.

i heard the only problem with clam is its unpacking which i suppose isn't good.

edit i just saw this for KDE
http://freshmeat.net/projects/qtfprot/

 

Another vote for BitDefender or F-Prot if you need an AV.

Simply because, relative to Windows, you're very unlikely to pick up a linux virus, and even if you do, it's unlikely to be able to do much damage to the system (other than /home/user) if you're running as a protected user and have the appropriate file permissions set.

You should back up your /home directory if you're concerned - very easy to do with rsync or tar, and then you can rebuild your system in a matter of minutes

Ned