Off Topic
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular
For the love of God...
...don't use Limewire.
If you must, use Frostwire instead. Less spyware.
Better still, ditch Windows, and never worry about virii or spyware again.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:21, 31 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
...don't use Limewire.
If you must, use Frostwire instead. Less spyware.
Better still, ditch Windows, and never worry about virii or spyware again.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:21, 31 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
Except
There are lots of known virii and malware for *nix and Mac (also based on *nix platforms).
Not to mention all the security holes that are widely known.
*sigh*
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:23, Reply)
There are lots of known virii and malware for *nix and Mac (also based on *nix platforms).
Not to mention all the security holes that are widely known.
*sigh*
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:23, Reply)
My brother swears by Limewire...
Forsaking the fact that it is ropier than an army scramble net and is lightly dry-humping his pc until it shakes to pieces...
just because it's free...and it's the only progam he understands.
pity poor bro.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:33, Reply)
Forsaking the fact that it is ropier than an army scramble net and is lightly dry-humping his pc until it shakes to pieces...
just because it's free...and it's the only progam he understands.
pity poor bro.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:33, Reply)
This should be put in Top Tips...
Limewire is absoltuely terrible, spyware, virii and fake recordings abound.
Bitlord ftw
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:37, Reply)
Limewire is absoltuely terrible, spyware, virii and fake recordings abound.
Bitlord ftw
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:37, Reply)
@Ethelred
The virii for *nix system can do very little damage without the root password.
In fact, a user can do very little damage without the root password.
I've been using Linux for many years with the machine constantly connected to the Internet - not once have I had a problem related to virii or spyware.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:40, Reply)
The virii for *nix system can do very little damage without the root password.
In fact, a user can do very little damage without the root password.
I've been using Linux for many years with the machine constantly connected to the Internet - not once have I had a problem related to virii or spyware.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:40, Reply)
I've been using windows
connected to the internet for years
downloaded whatever I want and looked at whatever I want and never had a problem with a virus or spyware
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:43, Reply)
connected to the internet for years
downloaded whatever I want and looked at whatever I want and never had a problem with a virus or spyware
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:43, Reply)
I was told
to use Soulseek, as it has a lot less of that garbage. I've not had problems yet...
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:44, Reply)
to use Soulseek, as it has a lot less of that garbage. I've not had problems yet...
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:44, Reply)
I have Windows XP
Conected to the internet for about three years and I don't have any issues with spyware or viruses either because I don't click on banners and have decent virus/spam/spyware blockers.
It is easier for PCs to become infected but it is mainly because people click an download a lot of crap.
Edit: So what Vipros said....
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:45, Reply)
Conected to the internet for about three years and I don't have any issues with spyware or viruses either because I don't click on banners and have decent virus/spam/spyware blockers.
It is easier for PCs to become infected but it is mainly because people click an download a lot of crap.
Edit: So what Vipros said....
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:45, Reply)
not lucky
all I've used (until I got my netgear router) is AVG and windows firewall
done the odd cleanup with Ace Utilities (great program) and that is all
I tend not to worry about accidently clicking banners and stuff either
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:47, Reply)
all I've used (until I got my netgear router) is AVG and windows firewall
done the odd cleanup with Ace Utilities (great program) and that is all
I tend not to worry about accidently clicking banners and stuff either
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:47, Reply)
I never had a virus
.. in the 10 years I used Amigas, as for spyware, adware etc.. well that simply didnt exist :)
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:48, Reply)
.. in the 10 years I used Amigas, as for spyware, adware etc.. well that simply didnt exist :)
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:48, Reply)
Yeah...
Netgear routers are damn fine IMO.
As to Windows v Linux, I didn't really want to get into the age-old Atari/Amiga argument.
Each to their own, I just prefer not having to update virus protection software every other week and reboot when I install something.
Just what you get used to I suppose.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:49, Reply)
Netgear routers are damn fine IMO.
As to Windows v Linux, I didn't really want to get into the age-old Atari/Amiga argument.
Each to their own, I just prefer not having to update virus protection software every other week and reboot when I install something.
Just what you get used to I suppose.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:49, Reply)
@ dchurch
Its a game of numbers. Windows PCs are more abundant, so more likely to be targeted.
I've not had any issues with my PCs either, 95,98,Me(shite, purest form),XP,2000,2003 as long as the user doesn't do anything stupid, and you have safeguards in place, its fine.
There are over 6000 machines in this organisation, of which 4000+ are constantly connected to the internet, I've had 3 cases of virii in 2 years. One of which was a user browsing "Motor racing videos".
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:50, Reply)
Its a game of numbers. Windows PCs are more abundant, so more likely to be targeted.
I've not had any issues with my PCs either, 95,98,Me(shite, purest form),XP,2000,2003 as long as the user doesn't do anything stupid, and you have safeguards in place, its fine.
There are over 6000 machines in this organisation, of which 4000+ are constantly connected to the internet, I've had 3 cases of virii in 2 years. One of which was a user browsing "Motor racing videos".
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:50, Reply)
Amigas were better
fact
there's no debate ;-)
I've used windows at home traditionally because I played games on the PC. these days I only use it for the internet, music andporn films so it doesn't really make any difference
computer came with Vista. I'll use Vista
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:52, Reply)
fact
there's no debate ;-)
I've used windows at home traditionally because I played games on the PC. these days I only use it for the internet, music and
computer came with Vista. I'll use Vista
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:52, Reply)
It may be
a game of numbers, but either way there are less things to worry about once Windows is out of the equation.
As to being targeted more, sure, almost certainly true, but the fact remains that there's very little damage a virus could do to a *nix system without knowing the root password. It's a public/private key pairing at 512 bit, so even GCHQ haven't cracked it (yet) - I doubt some script kiddie could do it.
Personally, I can't do the stuff I do in Windows - it just doesn't stand up for doing serious stuff. It's fine for browsing the web, email, films , music etc... but try and make it do some serious work and it's just the wrong tool for the job.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:52, Reply)
a game of numbers, but either way there are less things to worry about once Windows is out of the equation.
As to being targeted more, sure, almost certainly true, but the fact remains that there's very little damage a virus could do to a *nix system without knowing the root password. It's a public/private key pairing at 512 bit, so even GCHQ haven't cracked it (yet) - I doubt some script kiddie could do it.
Personally, I can't do the stuff I do in Windows - it just doesn't stand up for doing serious stuff. It's fine for browsing the web, email, films , music etc... but try and make it do some serious work and it's just the wrong tool for the job.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:52, Reply)
@Vipros and Vista
Did you love all the fancy animations for about 5 minutes until getting racked off and turning them all off?
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:56, Reply)
Did you love all the fancy animations for about 5 minutes until getting racked off and turning them all off?
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:56, Reply)
Does it
let you turn them off?
Or does it ask 14 times if you're sure you want to do that as it might affect some programs you installed a week ago?
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:57, Reply)
let you turn them off?
Or does it ask 14 times if you're sure you want to do that as it might affect some programs you installed a week ago?
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:57, Reply)
so far I haven't had any problems with Vista
as a matter of course I turn off most of the shit that is on when it arrives and the main differences I've noticed between XP and Vista is that they've included loads of little features that make my life easier.
which came as quite a shock I can tell you!
so far so good
edit: you can also turn off the bit that asks you 14 times whether you want to do something
that really really fucked me off until I worked out how to turn it off
seriously, being asked 3 times if you want to send something to the recycle bin is too much
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:58, Reply)
as a matter of course I turn off most of the shit that is on when it arrives and the main differences I've noticed between XP and Vista is that they've included loads of little features that make my life easier.
which came as quite a shock I can tell you!
so far so good
edit: you can also turn off the bit that asks you 14 times whether you want to do something
that really really fucked me off until I worked out how to turn it off
seriously, being asked 3 times if you want to send something to the recycle bin is too much
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:58, Reply)
I dual
booted with Vista for about 6 months to give it a fair crack of the whip.
I found out where to turn all that poo off as well, but it was REALLY hungry for some reason. I have 4 64bit quad core chips with 8gb of ram, and STILL it ran like a dog for at least the first 5-10 minutes of booting. Mind you, I was lead to believe after reading around a bit, that it was typical of the 64 bit edition.
I also found it really awkward with setting things up and changing system settings.
I gave up after 6 months of it.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:01, Reply)
booted with Vista for about 6 months to give it a fair crack of the whip.
I found out where to turn all that poo off as well, but it was REALLY hungry for some reason. I have 4 64bit quad core chips with 8gb of ram, and STILL it ran like a dog for at least the first 5-10 minutes of booting. Mind you, I was lead to believe after reading around a bit, that it was typical of the 64 bit edition.
I also found it really awkward with setting things up and changing system settings.
I gave up after 6 months of it.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:01, Reply)
that's weird
I've got dual core 64 bit and 2gig of ram and it runs beautifully
only have the 32bit edition of vista for some reason, but then, I don't care
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:03, Reply)
I've got dual core 64 bit and 2gig of ram and it runs beautifully
only have the 32bit edition of vista for some reason, but then, I don't care
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:03, Reply)
@ dchurch
UAC has been enabled on my vista workstation for 18 months now, and its not got in my way, and I do a lot of administrative back-end tasks.
Its just a common misconception that it gets in the way.
And no, it isn't disabled.
The only problem I have with it, is that it takes up half of the System's RAM before you do anything, but with 8Gb, I couldn't care less :)
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04, Reply)
UAC has been enabled on my vista workstation for 18 months now, and its not got in my way, and I do a lot of administrative back-end tasks.
Its just a common misconception that it gets in the way.
And no, it isn't disabled.
The only problem I have with it, is that it takes up half of the System's RAM before you do anything, but with 8Gb, I couldn't care less :)
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04, Reply)
The one thing with Vista
Is that they have completely changed all the menus round on office. Which is fantastic because the stuff I need is a lot easier to get to but that first week or two figuring out where they had put stuff was quite annoying.
Haven't actually tried the mail merge on it yet but that was one of the "argh" moments when switching from Office 97 or whatever ancient version I had to office 2007.
Overall it's not too bad but I'm not in any hurry to upgrade my pc at home to it. Haven't even looked what extortionate prices they are charging for that privilege either.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04, Reply)
Is that they have completely changed all the menus round on office. Which is fantastic because the stuff I need is a lot easier to get to but that first week or two figuring out where they had put stuff was quite annoying.
Haven't actually tried the mail merge on it yet but that was one of the "argh" moments when switching from Office 97 or whatever ancient version I had to office 2007.
Overall it's not too bad but I'm not in any hurry to upgrade my pc at home to it. Haven't even looked what extortionate prices they are charging for that privilege either.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04, Reply)
Yeah,
I was told that the 64 bit version was really poor - as I found out.
Maybe that's why your 64 bit machine is running the 32 bit OS.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04, Reply)
I was told that the 64 bit version was really poor - as I found out.
Maybe that's why your 64 bit machine is running the 32 bit OS.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:04, Reply)
frostwire
I get loads of (thankfully blocked) virus stuff from Frostwire, but never got anything nasty from Limewire :(
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:05, Reply)
I get loads of (thankfully blocked) virus stuff from Frostwire, but never got anything nasty from Limewire :(
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:05, Reply)
it's more likely that it's running it because it was cheaper
my computer was cheap as fuck
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:07, Reply)
my computer was cheap as fuck
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:07, Reply)
@ G Badger
I wouldn't bother upgrading from XP at home to be honest. I'm keeping my XP installation for a long while yet.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:07, Reply)
I wouldn't bother upgrading from XP at home to be honest. I'm keeping my XP installation for a long while yet.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:07, Reply)
the only reason I have Vista
is because my old computer went kaput and I had to buy a new one immediately
best value came with vista, and for some reason the serial for my old version of xp wasn't working last time I tried it
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:12, Reply)
is because my old computer went kaput and I had to buy a new one immediately
best value came with vista, and for some reason the serial for my old version of xp wasn't working last time I tried it
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:12, Reply)
@Ethelred
It did tickle me I must confess!
In fact, I have a strange smile on my face this second.
The others in the office think I've gone mad.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:15, Reply)
It did tickle me I must confess!
In fact, I have a strange smile on my face this second.
The others in the office think I've gone mad.
( , Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:15, Reply)
I've been thinking some more...
...about the security issue with Windows/Linux.
And I have come to the conclusion that it's not just a game of numbers.
For one thing, if you received an email with an executable in it, as a windows user, you just have to double click it and it runs. Voila, virus installed. I know you can block exes, zips etc...but then there will be times I'm sure when you legitimately want to do that, when you know it's not a virus. In linux, you would have to save the attachment off somewhere, log in as root (or give yourself root access) and then change the file attributes to allow the file to become executable. Not something that can really be done by accident.
Even if the user were stupid enough to do this, then the virus would very likely not be able to spread as fast as windows virii as the next user it was mailed to may well not be as stupid as the last.
Another is the fact that the dominant email client is Outlook or Outlook express. Both of these use IE to display emails, meaning that if there is a security hole in IE (and let's face it, there have been, and will be, plenty), then it affects Outlook and OE as well.
In Linux distros, the email clients differ wildly, I can think of about 4 off the top of my head that are widely used, meaning that a virus writer would have to write the virus to check for all sorts of mail clients to extract contact information etc... whereas in windows, the writer would probably only tarket one - the most popular. Yes, this part I suppose does make it a game of numbers.
As Linux users are not logged in by default as root - unlike windows, where the first user setup has by default admin rights - the only damage a virus *installed* as that user could do, is to that particular users home directory, and thus the system is still stable and safe. The user would simply log in as root and fix the problem.
Even if a program in Windows is installed under a non-admin user, DLLs can still be installed system wide - this is not the case in Linux, meaning that the program (virus) only has access to that users home folder once again. In windows, any user can excecute a program to use those DLLs regardless of who installed them, so the actual user is pretty much moot.
So, even if Linux were the dominant player, virus' would not be able to spread in the same way they do in Windows. The filesystem is much cleverer than NTFS or FAT and it would be extrememly difficult to get anything into the boot sector.
Sorry for the geekiness - I was just thinking out it when people come out and say, "it's because Windows is the biggest that it's targetted more" - yes, that is true, but at the same time, and with the track record of Windows, you'd think that maybe they might implement some very basic security measures to stop this happening. Unless of course, it's good for business - which I imagine it is is many respects.
Regardless of how a file hits the system, in Linux it has to be told manually that it can excecute - in windows, all you have to do is receive it via outlook.
( , Tue 19 Aug 2008, 10:45, Reply)
...about the security issue with Windows/Linux.
And I have come to the conclusion that it's not just a game of numbers.
For one thing, if you received an email with an executable in it, as a windows user, you just have to double click it and it runs. Voila, virus installed. I know you can block exes, zips etc...but then there will be times I'm sure when you legitimately want to do that, when you know it's not a virus. In linux, you would have to save the attachment off somewhere, log in as root (or give yourself root access) and then change the file attributes to allow the file to become executable. Not something that can really be done by accident.
Even if the user were stupid enough to do this, then the virus would very likely not be able to spread as fast as windows virii as the next user it was mailed to may well not be as stupid as the last.
Another is the fact that the dominant email client is Outlook or Outlook express. Both of these use IE to display emails, meaning that if there is a security hole in IE (and let's face it, there have been, and will be, plenty), then it affects Outlook and OE as well.
In Linux distros, the email clients differ wildly, I can think of about 4 off the top of my head that are widely used, meaning that a virus writer would have to write the virus to check for all sorts of mail clients to extract contact information etc... whereas in windows, the writer would probably only tarket one - the most popular. Yes, this part I suppose does make it a game of numbers.
As Linux users are not logged in by default as root - unlike windows, where the first user setup has by default admin rights - the only damage a virus *installed* as that user could do, is to that particular users home directory, and thus the system is still stable and safe. The user would simply log in as root and fix the problem.
Even if a program in Windows is installed under a non-admin user, DLLs can still be installed system wide - this is not the case in Linux, meaning that the program (virus) only has access to that users home folder once again. In windows, any user can excecute a program to use those DLLs regardless of who installed them, so the actual user is pretty much moot.
So, even if Linux were the dominant player, virus' would not be able to spread in the same way they do in Windows. The filesystem is much cleverer than NTFS or FAT and it would be extrememly difficult to get anything into the boot sector.
Sorry for the geekiness - I was just thinking out it when people come out and say, "it's because Windows is the biggest that it's targetted more" - yes, that is true, but at the same time, and with the track record of Windows, you'd think that maybe they might implement some very basic security measures to stop this happening. Unless of course, it's good for business - which I imagine it is is many respects.
Regardless of how a file hits the system, in Linux it has to be told manually that it can excecute - in windows, all you have to do is receive it via outlook.
( , Tue 19 Aug 2008, 10:45, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »