Virii.
1
2
-
Jan. 17, 2012 1:51 p.m. 92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
-
Jan. 17, 2012 1:54 p.m. Grizz HalfDork
That sounds homoerotic.
Dude, I got virii at starbucks today.
Stop humping the baristas.
Or would that be baristii?
-
Jan. 17, 2012 3:02 p.m. Karl La Follette Dork
Thanks will keep aware of that email tag
-
Jan. 17, 2012 3:13 p.m. Osterkraut SuperDork
Duke wrote: Not to mention that most of your favorite magazine is produced on Macs.
I assure you, Whooty Aficionado is produced using Windows.
-
Jan. 17, 2012 10:34 p.m. T.J. SuperDork
If the plural of virus is virii then is the plural of anus anusi?
I'm going with viruses and anuses, but not simultaneously.
-
Jan. 17, 2012 11:34 p.m. MG Bryan HalfDork
T.J. wrote:
If the plural of virus is virii then is the plural of anus anusi?
I'm going with viruses and anuses, but not simultaneously.
For your point to work, you would have had to pluralize anus as anii.
-
Jan. 17, 2012 11:46 p.m. ValuePack Dork
T.J. wrote:
I'm going with viruses and anuses, but not simultaneously.
It's a damn shame that'll never make the mag.
-
Jan. 18, 2012 8:29 a.m. triumph7 Reader
Back to the point, don;t open the emails, just go to Facebook and look at the notifications. No viruses, no anii........
-
Jan. 18, 2012 9:24 a.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
Grizz wrote:
At this point the whole "Macs don't get viruses" is horseE36 M3 marketing and blind fanboyism. Only real reson they used to be virus proof is because nobody was bothering to make a virus for computers that barely got used by anyone.
The real reason is that Linux, OS-X, Solaris, etc... are Unix based and they are true multi-user systems. A user can only damage his own stuff unless they run as root and so virii tend to be of the pesky kind that proliferate themselves via email rather than do damage to the host. It isn't that they don't exist - they are just much easier to avoid, find, and dispatch because only one user is effected by downloads. It IS possible to run code at a higher level (buffer overwrite exploits, etc) - it is just not as easy without physical access to the machine. Most *nix systems were designed for server/enterprise use and that market came late to Windows development.
Windows has made great strides in this direction since XP/Win2003 server but it still carries a huge legacy that isn't so easy to undo. It uses a centralized database and fairly permissive defaults that make it pretty easy for a user running code to gain control over system file/execution space.
Basically what I'm saying is - it isn't market share alone - it is the design of the OS and it's most proliferated configuration that is it's downfall.
-
Jan. 18, 2012 10:12 a.m. 1988RedT2 SuperDork
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Very well stated!
-
Jan. 18, 2012 2:00 p.m. GameboyRMH SuperDork
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
Virii.
No, wrong, it's actually viruses, as wrong as it sounds, been through long discussions about dead languages on this...
-
Jan. 18, 2012 2:15 p.m. 1988RedT2 SuperDork
GameboyRMH wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
Virii.
...been through long discussions about dead languages on this...
Killed off by virii, no doubt!
-
Jan. 18, 2012 3:07 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
1988RedT2 wrote:
GameboyRMH wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
Virii.
...been through long discussions about dead languages on this...
Killed off by virii, no doubt!
Borne by meeces no doubt.
-
Jan. 18, 2012 8:58 p.m. mmosbey Reader
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
Yes, also file metainformation. Marking a given file as executable or not is a good idea.Grizz wrote:
At this point the whole "Macs don't get viruses" is horseE36 M3 marketing and blind fanboyism. Only real reson they used to be virus proof is because nobody was bothering to make a virus for computers that barely got used by anyone.
The real reason is that Linux, OS-X, Solaris, etc... are Unix based and they are true multi-user systems. A user can only damage his own stuff unless they run as root and so virii tend to be of the pesky kind that proliferate themselves via email rather than do damage to the host. It isn't that they don't exist - they are just much easier to avoid, find, and dispatch because only one user is effected by downloads. It IS possible to run code at a higher level (buffer overwrite exploits, etc) - it is just not as easy without physical access to the machine. Most *nix systems were designed for server/enterprise use and that market came late to Windows development.
Windows has made great strides in this direction since XP/Win2003 server but it still carries a huge legacy that isn't so easy to undo. It uses a centralized database and fairly permissive defaults that make it pretty easy for a user running code to gain control over system file/execution space.
Basically what I'm saying is - it isn't market share alone - it is the design of the OS and it's most proliferated configuration that is it's downfall.
