LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-23-2006, 10:17 PM   #31
primo
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 542

Rep: Reputation: 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crobat
I always wondered who benefits the most from making viruses in computers, but here's something to think about (and the best conclusion that I can think of).
[...]
Is it really a bored hacker that creates these viruses, or is it perhaps someone working for Norton and/or windows? Think about it.
No, I don't think these companies will risk themselves that far. The latest vulnerabilities have been found in their own software and I guess it embarrass them everytime.

Quote:
The only ones who can find out quickly what the new virus is and a fix must be the ones who have something to do with it in some way.
Why ? Viruses are still computer code generated by human beings. They don't cease to be that.

Quote:
there's no reason to even make a virus for Linux.
8 years ago I grabbed a tutorial and went to code one just to know how they can be done. It was a .COM appending infector, polimorphic (random XOR encryption with a different key everytime), and of course: coded in assembler. No matter how many "versions" of it I produced, the antivirus always detected it with some funny names. The reasons to code viruses are many. But I don't understand that lack of concern for the consequences. They never think about it, maybe because their only world is the digital world and they don't know what may happen in the real one.
 
Old 02-24-2006, 12:32 AM   #32
2damncommon
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Calif, USA
Distribution: Debian Wheezy
Posts: 2,838

Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
I know all these jokes about MS and Vista are funny and all, but I think peoples will eventually migrate to Vista.
I participated in the Windows XP preview program. I ran it for 3 months before and 3 months after the official XP release. I had no reason to spend the money for XP while my OEM 98 was still supported. No one I knew had XP for years after that. Most have XP from new computer purchases. At work Win 2K is what is used. Vista will be the same.
 
Old 02-24-2006, 03:41 AM   #33
Mega Man X
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: ~
Distribution: Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Solaris, DSL
Posts: 5,339

Rep: Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2damncommon
I participated in the Windows XP preview program. I ran it for 3 months before and 3 months after the official XP release. I had no reason to spend the money for XP while my OEM 98 was still supported. No one I knew had XP for years after that. Most have XP from new computer purchases. At work Win 2K is what is used. Vista will be the same.
OK, that's one case. I didn't say that _everybody_ will use Vista. I still have Win95 in an old laptop (which I don't use) and Win2k in a server at home(which runs incredibly smooth). My point is, the majority of Windows users, use Windows XP. How many of those copies are legal is a different question though...

Question about viruses: Did you ever got infected by a virus? I did a few times when I started using Windows, but never after that. I mean, the only thing I install is games and free programs that I trust, such as winamp, filezilla, etc... If you don't go double-clicking on every exe peoples mail at you and use another browser as Firefox, I found difficult to get infect by viruses. Spyware are a bit different, but they are not virus in the true sense of the word...
 
Old 02-24-2006, 06:01 AM   #34
TigerLinux
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04
Posts: 1,731

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
I'll only use Vista 18 months after its official release.
 
Old 02-24-2006, 07:27 AM   #35
cormack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Distribution: Kubuntu 9.10, ubuntu 8.04.2 server
Posts: 156

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
In conclusion, expect Vista to have viruses at some point in its lifetime.
It already does, there are viruss for its beta releases in the wild already.
 
Old 02-24-2006, 08:14 AM   #36
Fireball7
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Lexington, Kentucky
Distribution: Slackware 10.2, Ubuntu 6.06
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by slantoflight
10)Waiting for Steve Jobs to develop autism.

Steve Jobs doesn't have autism yet? lol.
 
Old 02-24-2006, 08:19 AM   #37
2damncommon
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Calif, USA
Distribution: Debian Wheezy
Posts: 2,838

Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
My point is, the majority of Windows users, use Windows XP.
And I was not really disagreeing, just noting that from my POV the adoption was slow, like years after it's original release with most people I know moving to XP with a new PC purchase, a few moving because new hardware was not supported by 98.
Quote:
Question about viruses: Did you ever got infected by a virus?
I was not running XP during it's worst period when simply turning it on could leave you open to attack. The more I read the more I was glad I was not running it at the time. No I have never had a virus but I have used Linux as my main OS at home for the last 5 years so generally I am not opening email and such in Windows at all.
I decided when I upgraded my homebuilt PC that since I had used my OEM 98 peripherally on my previous computer I would go ahead and install an OEM XP on it. I installed Services for UNIX so I have familar tools if I really need them.
If Microsoft had a Vista preview program I would try it out. The XP preview program was 20 bucks for a preview version that was good for six months.
 
Old 02-24-2006, 08:38 AM   #38
Mega Man X
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: ~
Distribution: Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Solaris, DSL
Posts: 5,339

Rep: Reputation: 63
Thanks 2damncommon!. I agree with you that the adoption of Win XP was slow. I think the biggest issue here was that peoples were afraid to not be able to run their applications in XP. And a lot of applicationd really did not work at first. It could range from anything: from applications to use together with your scanner to games and high end, expensive applications as 3D Max.

Slowly, however, things started to look brighter, PC's got more powerful and peoples started using XP.

My question about virus was not quite directed at you, but everybody . Thanks for answering it though

Cheers!
 
Old 02-24-2006, 09:51 AM   #39
truthfatal
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Distribution: Slackware, OS X
Posts: 443
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man X
My question about virus was not quite directed at you, but everybody . Thanks for answering it though
I have, in the past, spent days removing virii (manually) from compys running Windows. Never my own compy though thankfully.
 
Old 02-25-2006, 06:26 AM   #40
greeklegend
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: At a computer
Distribution: Ubuntu 7.04, LFS 6.3 rc1 (living dangerously ;), Windows XP
Posts: 75

Rep: Reputation: 15
Vista recommended specs...
64bit processor (dual core) minimum 32bit
2gb of ddr3 ram (not commercially avaliable yet) minimum 512 ddr2
a SATA II disk minimum SATA I with NCQ (native command queing)
a 256mb PCI-Express video card minimum 128mb PCI-Express card

I run a 32bit core with 512 DDR SDRAM (not as quick as DDR2), an IDE Drive and a crappy Nvidia fx5200 with 128mb memory on AGP..........
......yup that definetly requires new hardware

Why would anyone want an OS that uses so many resources itslef when it could be using these on more important processes ie. Halo 2 (released on vista) CS, Halo 1, etc.
 
Old 02-25-2006, 06:44 AM   #41
greeklegend
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: At a computer
Distribution: Ubuntu 7.04, LFS 6.3 rc1 (living dangerously ;), Windows XP
Posts: 75

Rep: Reputation: 15
oops that was a reply to sumthing on page 1
 
Old 02-25-2006, 07:51 AM   #42
Mega Man X
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: ~
Distribution: Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Solaris, DSL
Posts: 5,339

Rep: Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by greeklegend
Vista recommended specs...
64bit processor (dual core) minimum 32bit
2gb of ddr3 ram (not commercially avaliable yet) minimum 512 ddr2
a SATA II disk minimum SATA I with NCQ (native command queing)
a 256mb PCI-Express video card minimum 128mb PCI-Express card

I run a 32bit core with 512 DDR SDRAM (not as quick as DDR2), an IDE Drive and a crappy Nvidia fx5200 with 128mb memory on AGP..........
......yup that definetly requires new hardware

Why would anyone want an OS that uses so many resources itslef when it could be using these on more important processes ie. Halo 2 (released on vista) CS, Halo 1, etc.
I wonder where on Earth (or someone's blog) you guys are getting all those Windows Vista system requirements info from.

Windows XP system requirement:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...n/sysreqs.mspx

Windows 2000 system requirement:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...qs/default.asp

Windows Vista System Requirement:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/n...taBeta1FS.mspx

Quote:
Minimum system requirements will not be known until summer 2006 at the earliest. However, these guidelines provide useful estimates:

512 megabytes (MB) or more of RAM

A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support

A modern, Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC.
Now, let's get this straight:

- The high end graphics card is required if you wish to run the system in maximum settings with Aero Glass. Microsoft is still providing the classic look and feel just like you could use Win2k look and feel with Windows XP.

- This is still a beta OS and system requirements may change. My guess is, it will drop a lot once optimizations are made and peoples keep complaining.

- When posting system requirements, please post a link, so we know you are not all guessing things. And if it's to post a link, post a Microsoft link or a trusted source, since I trust no Joe's rant blog.

If anything, Microsoft is more realistic providing system requirements then Linux:

Suse:
http://www.novell.com/products/sld/sysreqs.html

Fedora:
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/releas...-hardware-reqs

Slackware:
http://www.slackware.com/install/sysreq.php

Quote:
Slackware Linux doesn't require an extremely powerful system to run (though having one is quite nice . It will run on systems as far back as the 486. Below is a list of minimum system requirements needed to install and run Slackware.

* 486 processor
* 16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
* 100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
* 3.5" floppy drive

Additional hardware may be needed if you want to run the X Window System at a usable speed or if you want network capabilities.
Let's face it. It's difficult to give an accurate system requirement for Linux: Are you going to run X or not? Is it going to run Gnome or KDE or something like Black/Fluxbox?

With all honestly, I would not go with Fedora/SuSE + KDE in my 2GHZ P4 with 256MB Rambus RAM today. It runs like crap. And techinically I'm above requirements for both Fedora and SuSE.

I think to run a good desktop with Linux and KDE today, a 1GHZ+ machine with 512 RAM is a good start. You can modify things to save resources as running Fluxbox, but that's a different story, really. You can also disable a lot of features, eye candy and services in Windows as well. And these is pretty close to the "official" system requirements for Windows Vista, according to Microsoft, not average user Joe and n00b Bobby.

And don't tell me that recompiling my kernel will make wonders because it won't. And compiling the kernel is not an easy task for a newcomer to do either.

Last edited by Mega Man X; 02-25-2006 at 08:12 AM.
 
Old 02-25-2006, 11:57 AM   #43
Fireball7
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Lexington, Kentucky
Distribution: Slackware 10.2, Ubuntu 6.06
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man X
I think to run a good desktop with Linux and KDE today, a 1GHZ+ machine with 512 RAM is a good start.
Hey I run Fedora 4 w/ 512 and it runs fine, but when I monitor my usage, I typically only have about 115 megabytes of RAM used. Just an FYI. (sorry for the off-topic-ness)
 
Old 02-25-2006, 03:03 PM   #44
truthfatal
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Distribution: Slackware, OS X
Posts: 443
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man X
If anything, Microsoft is more realistic providing system requirements then Linux:
I don't know about Suse, but fedora ans Slackwares system reqirements are plenty realistic.
 
Old 02-25-2006, 03:17 PM   #45
Dudeking
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: UK, Midlands
Distribution: Fedra
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 15
good things take time.

Dont know why this is taking so long then.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: Windows Vista dudeman41465 General 44 12-24-2007 12:47 AM
Halo 2 for Windows Vista (Not XP) Mega Man X General 37 06-11-2007 08:08 PM
Windows Vista (formerly Longhorn) jaz General 39 02-19-2007 08:27 PM
LXer: Windows Vista, Tainted Already LXer Syndicated Linux News 1 01-16-2006 08:16 PM
Windows Vista is out! futurist Linux - General 8 09-09-2005 10:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration