Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes

Expand Messages
  • Axel Berger
    ... That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single infection of any kind.
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
      gkluther wrote:
      > I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.

      That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
      computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
      infection of any kind. For the time being that's good enough for me.
      And I don't rely on my hubris alone. Every once in a while I start up
      Kaspersky (I have a current three machine licence) and let it loose
      across all my partitions overnight. The result is always the same and
      quite reassuring - especially since being independant from it my method
      presumably also protects me from those things the AV software does not
      detect.

      If yours catches anything at all, you may assume that for every four or
      so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
      tests of such software result in even for the best.

      Axel
    • David Smart
      ... Your source for this statistic is? Actually, AV software will stop everything it knows about and nothing it doesn t know about yet. The response times for
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
        > ... you may assume that for every four or
        > so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
        > tests of such software result in even for the best.

        Your source for this statistic is?

        Actually, AV software will stop everything it knows about and nothing it
        doesn't know about yet. The response times for new AV signatures is quick,
        and my own computers have never been subjected to a virus that was found
        "after the event". So, either I am getting viruses that are too trivial to
        justify protection, or the response times of the AV companies beats the
        propagation times of viruses to the sort of Internet contact my computer
        has.

        > But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
        > computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
        > infection of any kind.

        I can't equate this with your apparent suggestion to others that they
        shouldn't bother with AV software. Surely your experience indicates that
        others should very definitely be running AV software, as they clearly don't
        follow the other stringencies that keep your computer clean.

        Regards, Dave S

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Axel Berger" <Axel-Berger@...>
        To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:15 PM
        Subject: Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes


        > gkluther wrote:
        >> I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.
        >
        > That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
        > computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
        > infection of any kind. For the time being that's good enough for me.
        > And I don't rely on my hubris alone. Every once in a while I start up
        > Kaspersky (I have a current three machine licence) and let it loose
        > across all my partitions overnight. The result is always the same and
        > quite reassuring - especially since being independant from it my method
        > presumably also protects me from those things the AV software does not
        > detect.
        >
        > If yours catches anything at all, you may assume that for every four or
        > so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
        > tests of such software result in even for the best.
        >
        > Axel
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • WV-Mike
        ... Not a problem. I have heard that a lot over the years. But, I must doing something right - no viruses in 20
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
          At 11:09 PM 11/16/2007 , gkluther wrote:
          >Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
          >(plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.
          >
          >Hey, nothing personal. Just my oppinion.



          Not a problem. I have heard that a lot over the years.
          But, I must doing something right - no
          <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus>viruses in 20 years.

          In fact, I cannot help but wonder why it is such a pervasive problem.
          How are all these people getting all these viruses?

          -Mike





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Axel Berger
          ... The respected German magazine c t regularly tests these things. You re right, viruses in the strict sense are usually caught reliably, but not so for
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
            David Smart wrote:
            > Your source for this statistic is?

            The respected German magazine c't regularly tests these things. You're
            right, viruses in the strict sense are usually caught reliably, but not
            so for trojans, spyware and some other stuff.

            > I can't equate this with your apparent suggestion to others that
            > they shouldn't bother with AV software. Surely your experience
            > indicates that others should very definitely be running AV software,
            > as they clearly don't follow the other stringencies that keep your
            > computer clean.

            Here I agree, with the proviso, that I hold my way to be better and
            proven to be so. But you're right, most people refuse to access the net
            the way I do: "Nothing works anymore".

            Axel
          • Axel Berger
            ... You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers use, I d
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
              WV-Mike wrote:
              > How are all these people getting all these viruses?

              You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my
              bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers
              use, I'd have a very serious word with the manager and probably take my
              custom elsewhere.

              Axel
            • David Smart
              ... And the misspellings. This had me puzzled for a while. I.e. why not run a spell-checker and/or get someone with a better understanding of English
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                > If my bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar
                > those phishers use ...

                And the misspellings.

                This had me puzzled for a while. I.e. why not run a spell-checker and/or
                get someone with a better understanding of English involved.

                It was suggested to me that it is deliberate, to make the job harder for the
                anti-spam software. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that
                my copy of PopFile is running at 98.64% accuracy on the 10,000 messages that
                have come in to my desktop computer since I last reset its statistics at the
                beginning of September - so the ruse clearly doesn't work very well.

                (Annoyingly, my spam content is running at over 47% of e-mails currently -
                due to an absolute flood of spam messages to the unmoderated, and unowned,
                C++ Yahoo group.)

                Regards, Dave S

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Axel Berger" <Axel-Berger@...>
                To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:07 AM
                Subject: Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes


                > WV-Mike wrote:
                >> How are all these people getting all these viruses?
                >
                > You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my
                > bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers
                > use, I'd have a very serious word with the manager and probably take my
                > custom elsewhere.
                >
                > Axel
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • loro
                Thank you, Stan, Dave and others. ... I must have been more tired than I thought, but that s where I looked and I didn t see the check boxes. I had been
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 18, 2007
                  Thank you, Stan, Dave and others.

                  >The signature .... again from the control center highlight 'E-mail scanner' &
                  >click on the properties button. In the window that pops up, click on the
                  >configure button. The next window will have a section called 'E-mail
                  >scanning',
                  >uncheck the 2 boxes labeled 'Certify mail' ..... no more AVG signatures.

                  I must have been more tired than I thought, but that's where I looked
                  and I didn't see the check boxes. I had been installing software all
                  day, so I admit I was a little cross eyed. Before your post came in I
                  uninstalled AVG, so I can't have a look right now. I decided it was
                  time to test the free AVs out there again. ATM I'm trying Avast, but
                  I may very well go back to AVG, so your instructions aren't wasted.

                  Lotta
                • Gerard Huijing
                  ... FYI The Latin plural of virus is virus . Without a context you cannot see the difference. Our plural, so to speak, for virus is viruses , just as
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 19, 2007
                    gkluther wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
                    > (plural of virus?).

                    FYI

                    The Latin plural of 'virus' is 'virus'. Without a context you cannot see
                    the difference.

                    Our plural, so to speak, for 'virus' is 'viruses', just as 'apparatuses'
                    is the plural of 'apparatus'.

                    'Viri' represents forms of a completely different word, while
                    'apparati', which I have come across many times on the internet, means
                    nothing at all.

                    Cheers,
                    Gerard


                    --
                    Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                    2312 ZD Leiden
                    Netherlands
                    inboxgen@...
                  • Axel Berger
                    ... Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but with the Latin
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 19, 2007
                      Gerard Huijing wrote:
                      > The Latin plural of 'virus' is 'virus'.

                      Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The
                      genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but
                      with the Latin meaning poison mucus or slime there isn't.
                      Thus viruses is correct.

                      Axel
                    • Gerard Huijing
                      ... You are right, Axel, thanks for the correction. I knew that virus was an oddball word in that it is neuter, not masculine as one might think at first sight
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 20, 2007
                        Axel Berger wrote:

                        >
                        > Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The
                        > genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but
                        > with the Latin meaning poison mucus or slime there isn't.
                        > Thus viruses is correct.
                        >
                        > Axel

                        You are right, Axel, thanks for the correction.
                        I knew that virus was an oddball word in that it is neuter, not
                        masculine as one might think at first sight (this can be proved from
                        existing texts).

                        I wrongly thought that virus was of the fourth, not the second declension.
                        Hence plural virus, hence the analogy with apparatus, where apparati is
                        definitely wrong.

                        Although the plural viri of virus is nowhere to be found, that plural
                        form is at least *theoretically* possible; it is not as impossible as
                        apparati is.

                        But this is slowly becoming alt.lang.lat stuff, and too off topic even
                        for the NTB off topic list. :-)

                        Cheers,
                        Gerard

                        --
                        Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                        2312 ZD Leiden
                        Netherlands
                        inboxgen@...
                      • Ray Shapp
                        Hi Gerad, Maybe too off topic , but entertaining,
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 23, 2007
                          Hi Gerad,

                          <<But this is slowly becoming alt.lang.lat stuff, and too off topic even for
                          the NTB off topic list. :-) >>

                          Maybe "too off topic", but entertaining, nevertheless.

                          Ciao,

                          Ray Shapp
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.