John Sankey on sat 15 dec 07
"I have a 120 gb hard drive that contains viruses. I removed
it from a computer and bought a new hard drive.
Should I reformat the infected drive or throw it away?"
If you have access to a standalone program for partitioning and
formatting discs, yes. But DO NOT EVER let an infected disc near
any standard operating system - you'll simply infect your new
disc too unless you know exactly what you are doing and have a
totally trustworthy on-line virus guard running.
--
Include 'Byrd' in the subject line of your reply
to get through my spam filter.
Timothy Joko-Veltman on sun 16 dec 07
No. But first, a correction. Vista is not Linux. It is merely the
latest version of Windows, and is in no way associated with Linux. If
someone says otherwise, ask to see the "source code" - which they will
not be able to produce, because Microsoft keeps that very secret.
Linux, however, is Open Source, which means that the source code must
be freely available to anyone who wishes to look at it - this is a
legally binding requirement for the use and distribution of Linux.
As for viruses in Vista, for a period, Vista will likely be slightly
less susceptible to viruses than Windows XP or Windows 98. But some
viruses will still run - since Vista is for the most part
backwards-compatible with WinXP. After the grace period - probably
about another 4-6 months (but possibly less) - the security holes in
Vista will start to be discovered and exploited, and virus count will
shoot up again.
And just to make sure I'm being clear as to susceptibility of Linux to
viruses, it is not that viruses cannot run on Linux - merely that
there's no reason for malicious hackers to aim for the beer can, when
they they're guaranteed to hit the barn. In other words, the ubiquity
of Windows makes it the "easy mark". Hence, they do not spend their
time trying to create Linux viruses, and as a result, viruses for
Linux are very scarce. There are other reasons for the relative
security of Linux as well - its Open Source nature and stronger
security models, for example - but this is thread is already quite a
bit of topic ... But for the interested, I'll willingly carry on a
private conversation.
Regards,
Tim
On Dec 16, 2007 6:11 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Timothy wrote:
> > Actually, you could install Linux on it then either never worry about
> > viruses again (last virus for Linux was 10 years ago ... you can run a
> > Linux computer with minimal security and still be virus-proof - I
> > personally don't even use an anti-virus program, and have never had
> > problems) or reinstall Windows (did this years ago, much to my great
> > relief). If you choose the latter, make sure the boot sector is also
> > reformatted to catch viruses that dwell there.
>
> Tim -
> You are the ace in this area, so my question may be a foolish one. I just
> bought a new Sony laptop running Vista, which operates on a Linux
> platform. No more MS Dos. So, is Vista less susceptible to viruses
> because it runs on Linux?
> - Vince
>
> --
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Technological University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
>
Steve Slatin on sun 16 dec 07
Vince --
I believe you've been misinformed. There is a connection between
Linux and OS-X (Linux is Unx-like; OS-X is Unix derived) but there's
not too much in common between Vista and Unix.
As far as "the end of MS-DOS" -- our friends at MicroS have
been trumpeting that for a decade. But take your brand new,
shiny computer, and go Start/All Programs/Accessories,
and look at the list -- your faithful MS-DOS prompt is right
there. Bits and pieces of MS-DOS will plague us for
decades, I suspect.
-- Steve Slatin
Vince Pitelka wrote:
Timothy wrote:
> Actually, you could install Linux on it then either never worry about
> viruses again (last virus for Linux was 10 years ago ... you can run a
> Linux computer with minimal security and still be virus-proof - I
> personally don't even use an anti-virus program, and have never had
> problems) or reinstall Windows (did this years ago, much to my great
> relief). If you choose the latter, make sure the boot sector is also
> reformatted to catch viruses that dwell there.
Tim -
You are the ace in this area, so my question may be a foolish one. I just
bought a new Sony laptop running Vista, which operates on a Linux
platform. No more MS Dos. So, is Vista less susceptible to viruses
because it runs on Linux?
- Vince
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Timothy Joko-Veltman on sun 16 dec 07
Actually, you could install Linux on it then either never worry about
viruses again (last virus for Linux was 10 years ago ... you can run a
Linux computer with minimal security and still be virus-proof - I
personally don't even use an anti-virus program, and have never had
problems) or reinstall Windows (did this years ago, much to my great
relief). If you choose the latter, make sure the boot sector is also
reformatted to catch viruses that dwell there.
And Linux is only as "hard" as you want it to be. Gentoo Linux (what
I use) is for the hard-core control freaks, while my mother could
install Ubuntu Linux. And there are many other Linux "distros"
(versions of Linux) that I've installed, most of which are installed
quickly with very little hassle (and in the case of Vector Linux, it's
downright fun). All of them support a browser (Firefox, Safari,
Konqueror, ...), an email program (Thunderbird), and word processor
(OpenOffice.org) ... photo editors/organizers, several Google programs
(Picasa and GoogleEarth both run on Linux, if I'm not mistaken), and
much more ....
Cheers,
Tim
On Dec 15, 2007 2:41 PM, John Sankey wrote:
> "I have a 120 gb hard drive that contains viruses. I removed
> it from a computer and bought a new hard drive.
> Should I reformat the infected drive or throw it away?"
>
> If you have access to a standalone program for partitioning and
> formatting discs, yes. But DO NOT EVER let an infected disc near
> any standard operating system - you'll simply infect your new
> disc too unless you know exactly what you are doing and have a
> totally trustworthy on-line virus guard running.
>
> --
> Include 'Byrd' in the subject line of your reply
> to get through my spam filter.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
>
Vince Pitelka on sun 16 dec 07
Timothy wrote:
> Actually, you could install Linux on it then either never worry about
> viruses again (last virus for Linux was 10 years ago ... you can run a
> Linux computer with minimal security and still be virus-proof - I
> personally don't even use an anti-virus program, and have never had
> problems) or reinstall Windows (did this years ago, much to my great
> relief). If you choose the latter, make sure the boot sector is also
> reformatted to catch viruses that dwell there.
Tim -
You are the ace in this area, so my question may be a foolish one. I jus=
t
bought a new Sony laptop running Vista, which operates on a Linux
platform. No more MS Dos. So, is Vista less susceptible to viruses
because it runs on Linux?
- Vince
--=20
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
vpitelka@dtccom.net
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Steve Slatin on mon 17 dec 07
Kathy --
On the one hand you seem to know more
about this than I do, but OTOH ...
the code for MS-DOS appears to be
alive and as unwell as ever within Vista.
I went to my command prompt, and
tried a few of the traditional 'internal'
commands --
Echo, path, copy, command, chdir,
time, and ver all responded as well
(or poorly!) as ever, and the syntax
to use them appeared entirely the
same.
FWIW, "command" returned
"Microsoft (R) Windows DOS
(C) Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001."
The one thing that was truly different
was when I did a chkdsk I got
"Access denied as yo do not have
sufficient privileges. You have to
invoke this utilityrunning in elevated
mode."
going back to NT 4.0 the 'different branches'
of Windows always had more shared
characteristics than differences. The
truly defective memory model in MS-DOS
was scrubbed out of NT 4.0, and so on,
but that gets us into the 'what constitutes
a different OS' question, and I don't want
to go there. I'd sooner argue the # of
angels on the head of a pin.
Best wishes -- Steve S
Kathy Forer wrote:
You're correct, Vista isn't based on MS-DOS as 3.0, 95 and 98 were.
It's in the Windows NT line of Microsoft computers. Different
architecture. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
if you want to know more.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Kathy Forer on mon 17 dec 07
On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Tim -
> You are the ace in this area, so my question may be a foolish one.
> I jus=
> t
> bought a new Sony laptop running Vista, which operates on a Linux
> platform. No more MS Dos. So, is Vista less susceptible to viruses
> because it runs on Linux?
I'm not Tim, but I'll try to help.
You may be thinking of POSIX ("Portable Operating System Interface")
which is just a standard that Vista is adhering to. Vista has nothing
to do with Linux whatsoever other than they're both operating systems
and if you were a geek you could probably get your Sony laptop to dual
boot in Vista and Linux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_boot
You're correct, Vista isn't based on MS-DOS as 3.0, 95 and 98 were.
It's in the Windows NT line of Microsoft computers. Different
architecture. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
if you want to know more.
Vista is Microsoft's latest attempt to create a more secure system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_of_Windows_Vista
Kathy
Kathy Forer on tue 18 dec 07
On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:31 PM, Steve Slatin wrote:
> On the one hand you seem to know more
> about this than I do, but OTOH ...
While I could quote chapter and verse, if I were so abled, of Apple's
history since the late date of 1988 and System 4.1, I've only looked
sideways while Windows has been developed.
My first computer was a 1985 Apricot F10 that a family member got in
California but couldn't use for his purposes. It had a 10 MB hard
drive, 512KB RAM, infrared mouse and keyboard and an 8-bit 8" color
monitor! 4.77MHz CPU versus today's 2-4 GHz CPUs. It ran MS-DOS and
Xerox's GEM operating system. kinda neat. I must have reformatted that
hard drive about forty times before I figured out the difference
between a hard drive and a floppy. Luckily I knew enough to keep the
original OS floppies locked.
Though I have some very early memories of the concept of computing,
like turning a refrigerator box into a summer fair computer, my first
actual introduction to computers had been on a high school subnet
(Rutgers link?) of the Carnegie Mellon node of ARPAnet in 1972. I
didn't do a lot with it as I disliked small dark rooms but the idea of
it intrigued me. Later on, 1974, a college friend, a seventeen year
old bio-chemistry-computer engineering major took me to a shack at the
New York Institute of Technology, a hotbed of early computer
development, where I saw the most amazing thing, a Quantel Paint Box
system in prototype. there was a touch sensitive pad and a pen that
could pick up a brush size, color, texture and a screen to see it all.
Amazing back then! This same friend, a kind of phreaker also, had
tired of hiking up the steep slope to use the punch card computer time
and he ran a clandestine telephone line down to the room where he
lived, so that was an early network thing to see. Another friend, who
was at CERN now and then, told me about email and I remember having a
hard time understanding the @ symbol.
We all have newbie starting stories with computer technology and many
far more involved than my flirtatious history.
The name of technology here is Kilns and Glaze Chemistry and that's
certainly most appropriate.
> the code for MS-DOS appears to be
> alive and as unwell as ever within Vista.
I can't quite figure out just how OS/2 and MS-DOS squared up in NT (it
seems OS/2 wasn't a winner, neither was MS-DOS), though I've skimmed
through Platform Death Match
>
that details the history of Macs and PCs from 8-bit platforms to
today's 64-bit ones. And even How Stuff Works' article on Operating
Systems, http://www.howstuffworks.com/operating-system.htm
The best that I can make out is that Vista runs MS-DOS as an an NTVDM
(NT Virtual DOS Machine) that gives a command-line interface that
looks similar to MS-DOS's "character-mode interface" but is really
just a console-version output of a full Windows API application.
> I'd sooner argue the # of
> angels on the head of a pin.
"The reader desirous of being merry with Aquinas's angels may find
them in Martinus Scriblerus, in Ch. VII who inquires if angels pass
from one extreme to another without going through the middle? And if
angels know things more clearly in a morning? How many angels can
dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling one
another?" -- Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848)
I only object when someone makes a statement that is unequivocally
wrong. Let stuff slide, but at some point, the record must be
corrected. It matters. Please don't try to compare the cost of used
systems with new ones! Though a $210 IBM XP sounds like a darn good
deal, no matter how you slice it.
Unix is different than Linux is different than Mac. Though they're
both based in Unix, the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems is
different than the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) series of Unix
variants. Mac OS X is based on BSD, an open source derivative of Unix.
Linux was a meeting of Minix and GNU Project.
This nice graph shows the different Unix forks:
What continually amazes me are the efforts and involvements of arts
and crafts with technology. Many of us, not all, were math-challenged
and gravitated to right-brain creative activities instead. Years later
we are using Photoshop, Illustrator, animation, writing code,
designing interfaces, doing all sorts of things that require
exactitude and analytical logic. Ceramics, in particular, requires a
lot of science; chemistry, electrical engineering, materials,
building. It's an amazing involvement.
I tend to go back and forth with my involvement in the studio or in
front of the computer. It may be somewhat presumptuous or fatuous to
extrapolate from my own activity, but art and technology are like
that. One goes ahead of the other for a while, then they trade places
and sometimes walk together all copacetic and furthering
understanding. They're happy to coexist or to exist independent of one
another, entirely isolated and pure.
Kathy
| |
|
