Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Anti-Virus for Windows
One of the reasons I went for Linux was the sheer stupidity of using a virus laden operating system like Windows. Any ad for an anti-virus program will tell you that 30,000 new viruses are created every day. These include mutations, revisions, escalations, evolutions and the odd totally new revolutionary virus flavor.
The funny part about viruses is that there is no single anti-virus program which can protect against all the viruses out there. Even the best anti-virus programs can only detect 95% to 98% of all viruses. And to think that it takes a while (a day or two or a week or two) before the virus signature is included in the program's database or virus definitions. Until that time, the PC is vulnerable.
But that's just the paranoid me talking.
So with (at least) 2 anti-virus programs running, as well as (at least) 2 anti-spyware programs also running in the background, I have to ask, is it all worth it? For a while there, I thought it was. Yup, I thought having all these programs running in the background keeping the PC safe (rather, keeping Windows safe) gave me some peace of mind.
But at what price?
You start up the machine, and it takes forever. The anti-virus and anti-spyware programs have to check for updates, and do a preliminary scan of memory and boot sector, and important programs. And only then can you really start to run your Windows programs. Or at least try to make them run, for the most part the programs crawl because of all the programs running the background, accessing the internet stream, accessing the hard disk, accessing the data being read by the hard disk, and generally keeping the system resources too busy to run the programs you need to run in order for you to work.
Another funny thing which happens is when you have one anti-virus program running (lurking) in the background, while you have another anti-virus program in the foreground scanning the hard disk. This gets worse when a virus is found. Each of them will block another, because the other one is accessing an infected file. The programs will ask for user intervention to allow the other program to access a file (for deletion).
Going Linux, I thought I had evaded and left all this crazy virus business behind. It turns out that even if linux does not have native viruses, Windows viruses still exist in the system. Simply put, if a file is infected, and I copied it into Linux, it might not infect my PC, but it would still be there. So if I run a Windows program (through WINE) it might still infect other Windows programs and files in my PC. It's also possible to infect flash drives (improbable, but possible). More probably, the virus on the Linux machine would not infect the Linux OS, but it can infect Windows PCs on the local area network.
Bottom line, since I have a netbook on the LAN, then it is vulnerable not just from the internet or shared files, but also from Linux PCs. The Linux PC wouldn't feel anything, but the Windows PC would be hurt bad.
The funny part about viruses is that there is no single anti-virus program which can protect against all the viruses out there. Even the best anti-virus programs can only detect 95% to 98% of all viruses. And to think that it takes a while (a day or two or a week or two) before the virus signature is included in the program's database or virus definitions. Until that time, the PC is vulnerable.
But that's just the paranoid me talking.
So with (at least) 2 anti-virus programs running, as well as (at least) 2 anti-spyware programs also running in the background, I have to ask, is it all worth it? For a while there, I thought it was. Yup, I thought having all these programs running in the background keeping the PC safe (rather, keeping Windows safe) gave me some peace of mind.
But at what price?
You start up the machine, and it takes forever. The anti-virus and anti-spyware programs have to check for updates, and do a preliminary scan of memory and boot sector, and important programs. And only then can you really start to run your Windows programs. Or at least try to make them run, for the most part the programs crawl because of all the programs running the background, accessing the internet stream, accessing the hard disk, accessing the data being read by the hard disk, and generally keeping the system resources too busy to run the programs you need to run in order for you to work.
Another funny thing which happens is when you have one anti-virus program running (lurking) in the background, while you have another anti-virus program in the foreground scanning the hard disk. This gets worse when a virus is found. Each of them will block another, because the other one is accessing an infected file. The programs will ask for user intervention to allow the other program to access a file (for deletion).
Going Linux, I thought I had evaded and left all this crazy virus business behind. It turns out that even if linux does not have native viruses, Windows viruses still exist in the system. Simply put, if a file is infected, and I copied it into Linux, it might not infect my PC, but it would still be there. So if I run a Windows program (through WINE) it might still infect other Windows programs and files in my PC. It's also possible to infect flash drives (improbable, but possible). More probably, the virus on the Linux machine would not infect the Linux OS, but it can infect Windows PCs on the local area network.
Bottom line, since I have a netbook on the LAN, then it is vulnerable not just from the internet or shared files, but also from Linux PCs. The Linux PC wouldn't feel anything, but the Windows PC would be hurt bad.
Sometimes Windows Still Surprises Me
Bought a replacement CPU the other week and had a chat with the sales person. Got a case with power supply, no keyboard, no mouse, a mother board with a processor. I told the sales person I was assembling with some spare parts. I have spare SATA hard disks, memory and a (256MB) PCI-E video card. He asked me what the memory speed was, and I said 400, at which point he mentioned that it might not work with the newer board and processor. Okay, got that. I added memory to the bunch.
And then he asked what OS I used. I asked why, how would that affect my purchase. He mentioned that 32-bit Windows uses only up to 3GB (or thereabouts) and a 4GB memory would be hobbled. He suggested that I install 64-bit Windows instead, since the processor was 64-bit anyway.
It got me thinking about it a bit. Getting home, I backed up my files and proceeded to install and re-format one hard disk for Ubuntu Linux 9.10. I had used 9.04 till then, and was very much satisfied with how fast the PC boots up. I didn't install the 64-bit version, but still Linux was able to detect and make use of all 4GB memory. (On linux, the command on the terminal is "free -m" which shows memory usage.)
Oh well. Maybe I'll be installing Ubuntu 9.10 (64-bit) another time. But for now, I'm happy with what I got.
And then he asked what OS I used. I asked why, how would that affect my purchase. He mentioned that 32-bit Windows uses only up to 3GB (or thereabouts) and a 4GB memory would be hobbled. He suggested that I install 64-bit Windows instead, since the processor was 64-bit anyway.
It got me thinking about it a bit. Getting home, I backed up my files and proceeded to install and re-format one hard disk for Ubuntu Linux 9.10. I had used 9.04 till then, and was very much satisfied with how fast the PC boots up. I didn't install the 64-bit version, but still Linux was able to detect and make use of all 4GB memory. (On linux, the command on the terminal is "free -m" which shows memory usage.)
Oh well. Maybe I'll be installing Ubuntu 9.10 (64-bit) another time. But for now, I'm happy with what I got.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Friday, March 05, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Monday, March 01, 2010
RT @DrySpring: Nicole Fuentes Interview with BookWenches about "Keeping Her in the Light": http://ow.ly/1cHhJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)