The plural of 'virus' is never 'virii'. 'Virii' would be the plural of 'virius'. The plural of 'virus' is either:
- viruses
- viri
- virora
The jury is still out on which one it is, the last one is technically most correct, but it is never 'virii', because 'us' becomes 'i' plural, not 'ii'.

As for Linux...

Being open source, you'd think that Linux would be a whole lot easier to exploit.

But there's simply not enough people using Linux for virus programmers to bother with it. The more popular Linux becomes with users, the more popular it'll become with virus programmers too and it'll suffer exactly the same problems as Windows. Well, perhaps not exactly the same, but different problems of the same magnitude.

But Linux will never be a viable alternative to Windows. Not any time soon.

I use Mandrake, supposedly one of the more user-friendly distros.. I posted this on a previous thread, but I think it's quite relevant here too. Everything takes at least twice as long to do.

I installed Mandrake and it looked pretty crap, so I decided it was probably a good idea to update the graphics drivers. I think I have a Geforce 3, so Nvidia it is.

So.
1. Download drivers
2. Try to install drivers. I don't have permission.
3. Log in as root.
4. Chmod.
5. Install drivers. I need to shut down X.
6. Find out I need to edit /etc/inittab
7. Work out how to use vim
8. Edit boot parameters
9. Find out that save and quit is :wq
10. Reboot
11. Find out I need to edit xorg.conf
12. vim up xorg

I was supposed to change "nv" to "nvidia". But I see it is currently at "radeon".
It was about now that I realised that I didn't have the Geforce 3 in this box, I put it in another machine a month ago, and there's a Radeon 9000 in this one.
Considering that steps 1 to 12 took me a good 3 hours, I was not best pleased, as I had just wasted 3 hours and I was back at step 1. And apparently ATI are even worse at supporting Linux than Nvidia, so I'll have even more fun installing that.

In XP, it'd go something like:
1. Download drivers
2. Install drivers

and when I discover the mistake I'd go "d'oh!", rollback the drivers (perhaps booting into safe mode, if the nvidia drivers had cacked stuff up), and install the correct radeon drivers, and I'd be merrily on my way.
That'd take less than 20 minutes, I'm sure. Worst case scenario, I'd load up system restore (oh how I would like to make passionate love to the man that coded up system restore. it has saved my computer so many times)

No, Windows users are not considering Linux as an alternative, most of them don't even know it exists.

But why should they? Linux isn't going to be any sort of Windows alternative, it's only ever going to appeal to the specialist types that require something different and specific that Windows doesn't have (and the slashdot guys that are all 'omq bill gates sits on a throne of babies' skulls!' and think they're '1337' by using Linux. these lot probably make up the majority of Linux users)

The only Windows alternative there is is OS X, and that requires different hardware.


As for Microsoft...

I wasn't really following the case, but I thought Microsoft had been split in two with OS development and browser development as different companies?
What happened with that?

It didn't happen.

That's far from being true. Why else would so many people here be using it? Image manipulation, development, gaming (YES!), and just surfing. It can ALL be done in Linux. There's no reason why Linux should not be considered an alternate to Windows.



There's your problem right there. Mandrake is easy to install, but a pain in the *** to maintain. An apt or portage based distro is a lot easier to keep up to date, and not necessarily harder to install (Knoppix, Fedora Core... yes! You can use apt in FC2!)



Everything is long when you don't know what you're doing. Everything took time the first time you did it in Windows, I'm sure. Ever try to get a sound card working in DOS? Did you know your address, DMA, IRQ? You might not have known what they were. Same in Linux. You learn, then everything comes naturally afterwards. Not knowing what video card you had in your computer and installing the wrong drivers really didn't help though.



You know, everyone says that ATi drivers are a pain to install in Linux, but looking at that just tells me the opposite.

1. Download drivers
2. Apply patch
3. Login as root.
4. Shut down X
5. rpm -install the drivers
6. Run fglrxconfig (step 5 even tells you to do this)
7. Create sym link to xorg.cong if not using XFree
8. Restart X

-takes about 15 minutes


And in Gentoo:

1. su
2. emerge ati-drivers
3. Restart X

-takes about 5 minutes. You don't even have to worry about downloading the drivers. Emerge does that for you. I don't see Windows handling that for you.



In Linux, you wouldn't have to boot into "Safe Mode," you'd just quit to console, edit one line on xorg.conf to change the driver loaded, and then just "startx." Reinstall the right drivers after fixing what you screwed up. A lot faster than waiting for your computer to boot into Safe Mode.



If Windows users are not considering Linux, how did you wind up trying it out? How did so many Linux users wind up on Linux? Five years ago, no one was using Linux. Now, half the forum here dual-boots and some even use it exclusively. Even my mom knows about Linux.



Yeah, I use Linux to feel '1337' and because I hate Microsoft :rolleyes:, and would never touch XP 'cause Bill Gates eats babies for breakfast.






Seeing as OS X is similar to Linux in many ways, that's not a great argument. Most Linux code can be compiled in OS X with modifications.

It's a shame you think that Linux is unusable based on your experience. If everyone *****ed at Windows when they installed the wrong drivers and it screwed up...

If you had installed the wrong drivers in Windows and it didn't want to boot anymore, would you have switched to Linux? It's so much easier to bash something that you don't completely grasp, isn't it?

That's probably what IBM thought in the 80's about OS/2.

I'm using XP here..





Oh right, "edit one line on xorg.conf". Sounds so simple! Except that involves:
1. Finding out you actually have to edit xorg.conf
2. Work out where it is
3. Work out how to open it
4. Find out which line you have to edit
5. Work out how you save and quit in vim

Right.
In XP, you just hold down one key when it boots up.

What the hell does "xorg.conf" mean, anyway? In XP, you can pretty much work out what you have to do just using common sense, but in Linux you have to decipher what everything is. It doesn't make any sense.



The thing is, XP doesn't mess up if you install the wrong drivers. Like I said, the worst thing that happens might be that you'll have to use system restore, and voila it works.
Linux has nothing like that.


I still stand firmly by the statement that doing anything in XP is twice as fast and thrice as easy as Linux, and the advantages that Linux bring are bordering on 0.



Heh, I don't think this forum is representative of computer users in general. I think many of the Linux users here fit in the catagory I described.

XP is good enough for 99% of people. Linux offers nothing to them, nothing at all.



When I talk about "television" I'm always referring to "colour television", not 'black and white'. "Windows" will refer to XP, unless otherwise specified. No-one should be using 98 anymore.

I was giving an example. Of course Linux isn't going to be easy, it isn't the same as Windows, and you're used to Windows.



All part of the learning process. You do it once and you don't have to do all of that the next time you want to edit a file.



I couldn't help but laughing at that. xorg.conf -- X.org is what enables graphical display in Linux. conf - for configuration.



It doesn't need anything like that. Most problems can be simply diagnosed and solved at the command line.




Of course, if you're new to Linux, things aren't going to be as easy. But saying that Linux brings 0 advantages?

My girlfriend couldn't give a **** about Linux. I wiped XP off of her computer and installed Fedora Core 2, alone. All of the Windows apps that she needs run in it, she's perfectly happy running OpenOffice.org instead of MS Office, and she enjoys not having to reboot the computer when it ****s up. Overall, she prefers Linux to Windows. And she doesn't know a thing about drivers and such.



Linux offers increased stability, even over XP (before you tell me that XP never crashes). Ever seen a Windows box run 6 months without a single reboot?

I know something it offers - ease of installation. Try to install XP, and update it BEFORE you get loaded with worms and other junk. How frustrating is that? Not as bad as editting xorg.conf is it?

Sure, you can unplug your net connection - how do you update? Use the MS critical update CD? Why should I have to go through ordering and waiting for that because they made a lousy product?

I don't run any of my computers 6 months straight, for the sole reason of giving my hardware a chance to rest. Why on Earth would you want to run a box six months straight?



It's not a lousy product. As it was stated above, if as many people spent as much time on infecting Linux as Windows, it'd be the exact same magnitude of a problem.

Mort--about your comment that if you install the wrong drivers in Windows it doesn't mess up. Eh. Wrong.

I uninstalled my nforce2 chipset drivers, went to go reinstall new ones (booted up in safe mode), after it was done, shutdown and rebooted...and nothing. Turns out they never really reinstalled, so my computer couldn't talk with my components. So I ended up installing knoppix.

My first time through was a breeze. Set up in about an hour or two, and then it was just maintenance on getting what I wanted. It was so easy too:

apt-cache search firefox
*look through*
apt-get firefox*numbarsetcwtfomgbbq*

I now can go into my console and type "firefox" and it boots up automatically. How friggin awesome is that?

Not to mention I don't have to worry about scanning for spyware, looking for virii (yes I did it, and no I don't care if it's right or wrong), or anything of that sort. And it was good, it was fun. Next I'm trying gentoo, and that may even become PERMANENT.

If you run a server, for example.



As it was stated above, a virus in Linux wouldn't have the same effects as it does in Windows, and probably couldn't do more than wiping out your home directory and application preferences.



"If as many spent spent their time infecting Linux" - that's not even a valid argument! The point is that there aren't as many people infecting Linux - meaning that there's little or no viruses out there to infect you. Reinstalling XP and plugging your modem in is like playing Russian roulette with your computer.

I find it hard to believe that Linux is that hole-free.

It isn't necessarily hole-free. It's basic security just doesn't allow anything to be executed without your knowledge/consent. Most likely this is the obstacle keeping people from trying to infect Linux. Also, no one hates Linus as much as some people hate Bill Gates.

Wow, after reading this entire thread, I'm definitely sticking with XP. You linuxers almost had me converted for a while, but not now. There's no way I want to deal with all that bs.

*deletes linux*

As someone who's tried Linux, I can safely say that I have no need for it. OK, Windows 2K is finicky and crash-happy at best, but what benifit does Linux bring to someone who just plays games, watches pr0n and surfs the net? I only have a rudimentary firewall supplied by our router and viri are meh.

I used Linux for about a week before deciding three things.

1) I didn't know what the hell to do.
2) I couldn't be arsed to learn what the hell to do.
3) I have no real use for it apart from to be "OMG WOOTS LINUX SI TEH SUPREAM!!!!11"

My box is as happy as it could be (after a reformat due to connection problems, but that's a moot point) and I'm very rarely called to do work on it - that's what happens when you've got maths and further maths as your main subjects.

Let's face it, Linux zealots. Windows is prettyful and easy to use for noobs, which most people are. I'd still be using IE if Firefox didn't have tabbed browsing which is a kickarse alternative to eighty different browsers open at the same time...

I'm no Linux zealot - I don't run around saying Linux is the best and that only losers use Windows. I just don't see any reason anyone should be saying that Linux isn't a considerable alternative to Windows.

1) If you didn't know what the hell to do, a post in the Tech forum would've helped you a lot.
2) If you couldn't be arsed to learn what the hell to do, why did you even bother trying Linux out?
3)

I've been forced to pick up Linux at school (Fedora Core), and I've found it a breath of fresh air. It took me a couple hours to teach myself the basics of getting around, doing all the file operations and stuff with the console. I certainly have a lot more to learn, but it's interesting, (and once I figured out how to use it it is a fine programming platform -- especially for Java). Why I say that is I can compile the exact same code on my Windows box at home and it will run perfectly -- even if I'm dealing with graphics API stuff!

Linux : Brilliant operating system for system administrators, servers, and folks who want to do some more 'stuff' with their computers.

Windows : Brilliant operating system for folks who want to use their computer for applications, games, and what-not, or those who simply don't want all the hassle.

Anyone who says XP is one of the best OS's is either out of their minds, or knows nothing on the subject. It is the absolute worst OS I've ever had the disfortune of using. Out of the dozen or so I've used, it is the absolute worst. Anyone who knows anything about Windows OS's, agrees Win98SE is the most stable, functional, and reliable of the windows OS's. Of course, Mac and Linux far surpass it, but as Kirby mentioned, there just aren't as many programs made for them. It crashes all the time (oh, sorry, reboots without asking... not "crashes", though the effect is the same, except you don't even get a chance to fix the problem). People complain about the "blue screen of death" in other Windows OS's. Nowhere near as bad as XP's "blue screen of death". Get one of those, you have to format the HD. And they are not uncommon. This is because XP itself controls diskwriting, not to mention the fact it uses the relatively unreliable NTFS, which has a tendency to corrupt the disk. The number of security issues is amazing. Simply having the OS puts you at risk, to all kinds of things. It's the slowest and most painful OS I've use. XP wastes more resources than any other OS. It's a fact. Two computers with same stats, (CPU, RAM, etc), one running Win98SE, the other WinXP, and the one with Win98 will run more reliably, run faster, use fewer resources, and generallly be better. Then there's the problems with installing another OS in place of XP. It's been specifically made a pain in the *** to do so. Compatability is also just horrible.

As much as I hate XP, I do have to say, you, my good man, have no clue what you are talking about. I think everyone here will concur.

The irony of your statement left a bad taste in my mouth. It almost sounds as if you are being sarcastic. Because every statement is so completely opposite of the truth its not even funny.

Here's just one place where you are wrong: XP controls diskwriting. Yeah, so what? So does all other operating systems.

Another? NTFS: Yeah, its definately better than FAT32. DEFINATELY. The indexing system alone makes it faster, and its error checking and other features are godlike compared to FAT32.

If a person had to format every time they got a BSOD on XP, my friends would be a in a world of hurting. Too bad that isn't true.

Win98 isn't compatible with everything anymore. Proof? Adobe Premiere.

XP is slower on the same configured system because it is newer. Its made for newer systems. You'd be stupid to use XP on a 500mhz machine. But God knows it'd be more stable.

Compatibility is not horrible. Win98 doesn't even have proper USB support. In fact, it downright SUCKS with USB devices.

But this is the last time you'll see me defend XP. I just hate it when people spew ignorance

Oh look...they're comparing eManhoods again..

[url]www.doigtsagiles.com/epenis/[/url]

Thanks, CM, for clearing that up so I didn't have to.

Wolfy--starting up your computer puts 5x the normal load on the components. FIVE TIMES. That's why people who have to constantly boot and then shut down their computers everyday have components that go out more often (I've seen it with my dad's computer--in absolutely horrible shape). I keep mine on almost constantly for this reason. And you really don't need to rest your computer with Linux, though you do with Windows. Windows has all those little memory leaks which makes it so that yes, you have to shut down and start back up just so you don't end up using 100% of your resources in Explorer. Linux...doesn't.

Linux is a great system, not superior to Windows in compatibility, but definitely an alternative everyone should try.

Kyle--don't pay attention to Mort-Hog, he was using a distro that's EXTREMELY hard to maintain compared to knoppix, debian, or gentoo. Anything that's apt or emerge-based will be easier to maintain than even windows is.

The only thing with linux is the file system is extremely hard to get used to (or at least was for me). I had to use my other partition because I couldn't figure out where everything went on the one my main partition. Meh.

Anyways--Linux should be tried, and if you don't like it, then abandon it. I'd suggest not trying Mandrake or Slack (unless you get slapt-get), or anything that's .rpm or otherwise manual-maintenance based.

'Nuff. Said.

That's why I throw mine into Hibernation when I'm away from it for more than a few hours.

Hibernation isn't much better on the components. A little, but not much

Sure, i'd use Linux. If I saw one SINGLE reason to do so. But currently, Windows XP has NEVER EVER let me down. Not once. Never has it had a problem I couldn't fix in a half a second. I run Mandrake on my other computer and i can't go an hour withotu something going wrong without me even ahving to do anything. Seriously. And whether or not it's the distro i'm running or my incorrect configuration or whatever excuses you could come up with, it doesn't change the fact that I run Windows XP perfectly and my linux computer sucks.

You see, linux itself is just a kernel. Really, in essence, comparing Mandrake to Knoppix is like comparing Win 95 to XP. 95? Buggy, lame, hard to maintain, etc. XP? Golden, flawless, cream of the Windows crop.

They're practically different OSes--just based on the same kernel, with the same look.

So it's your mandrake computer that runs like crap, not your Linux computer. Put knoppix on there then see how sexy it is.

I will. But my point was that There's absolutely nothing wrong with Windows XP as far as I am concerned, and I don't have the NEED to spend huge amoutns of time figuring out a new OS. I WILL, however, because I want to, but I don't need to.

First note, I wasn't spewing ignorance. I see that's your job. I've read extensively on the subject. I've used nearly every Windows OS there's been, at least since 3.1. I've also used multiple versions of Mac, Linux, and Unix. Of all of them, Windows XP is the absolute worst. For those who know anything about OS's, they wouldn't touch the thing. No major corporation will go near it. Windows 2000 however, is far different. It is a very well made OS. It's what most current corporations use, with good reason, as it is both made for modern networking, and is quite stable.

XP is the only OS to write directly to disk. The other Windows OS's for example, use an intermediary file-writing system. In the end, NTFS is highly likely to cause file corruption. Actually, just having a memory dump from an XP caused error can cause corruption, as can entering Standby mode, and several other things. The only real advantage to NTFS in the first place is the size of files it can handle. However, XP has a tendency to corrupt them. Of course it's better cousin Win2000 does not have such a tendency.

Stable? Damned if that were true. Using various computers with XP, I have experienced innumerable crashes. They can occur as a result of anything from opening a program, to pressing ok in a dialog. Or from doing absolutely nothing at all. Win98SE on the other hand, I can run for weeks straight without a crash or even a problem.

Speed? Well, XP is a wasteful memory and disk hog. Actually, there's enough memory leaks, that unless you manually fix up your memory on XP, it cannot run beyond a certain amount of time without crashing. This has been verified by universities in controlled situations.

Compatability? The majority of all software is NOT compatible with XP. Thousands upon thousands of programs have had to be rewritten to even have a hope of working with it. And a lot of software still being made still has known problems with XP.

Win98 lacks USB support? Hardly. I've used dozens of USB devices without fail on Win98. Graphics tablets, controllers, external drives, webcams, printers, external modems, and several other devices, without the slightest problem.

The number of security issues is also another concern. Because it's bundled with IE and Outlook, you are automatically opened to security dangers. Simply having these on your system puts it at risk.

Simply put, WinXP is the worst windows system ever created. Basically, they took Win2000, tried to dumb it down, added about 10,000 bugs and security issues, and removed compatability for about 90% of software on earth.

The only reason XP ever even got sold is because Microsoft pushed and made deals for it to be bundled with any new computer. And of course the few who didn't know better.

The only OS considered anywhere near as bad as XP is WinME.

If getting an OS, Win98SE is the best. If you can't get ahold of it, Win2000 Pro.

Please, get the facts first instead of just spouting the Microsoft endorsed reviews.

I've also used every Windows OS since ver 2, back in the late 80's. XP is the best so far, hands down.

WinXP has file corruption issues? Have yet to see that happen and I've been using XP since before it was even available commercially.

Stable? Damn straight it is. I remember nothing other than numerous reboots, blue screens and constant freezes from Win98SE. XP, however, just about never does anything wrong.

Speed? If you consider that most of my faster hardware isn't even supported in Win98, I guess XP wins by default.

Compatibility? Try running Adobe Premiere (and not an old version) in Win98.

USB support? Win98 and XP are up to par I guess, however XP does a better job at handling connection/disconnection of devices.

Security issues? What's this about XP being bundled with IE and Outlook Express? So is Win98, with even older versions with less bugs fixed. Oops...

And whatever you do, do not try to compare WinME to XP. If anything ME is more like 98 than XP.

Please, don't assume that your personal experiences make XP an awful OS when just about everyone here will agree with me when I say XP > 98, unless you're running a Pentium 2 or some other old crap.

Perhaps. But I do it so infrequently and when I do, it cuts my reboot time by 3/4ths. I don't have to wait for countless things to load all over again. Most of the time, the computer is running all day and night. During the night, it's usually downloading, rendering, or playing music. I have this bad habbit of listening to music via headphones while in bed. I fall asleep, the music keeps playing, and the headphones end up on the floor.

<3 !!!!

Gold.

I have to agree with everyone else. As much as I dislike WinXP, it is LOADS better than 9x.

Wow, you must be really misinformed. Win2k and XP run on the EXACT. SAME. KERNEL.

In other words, their NTFS system is the same, their stability is the same, their compatibility is nearly the same... (XP supports more)

And I have found NO information on your claim that XP is the only direct NTFS writing OS.

But I HAVE found info that disproves your claim that big corporations avoid XP. Proctor and Gamble, a very very large corporation, uses XP for nearly all their computers, except their Unix servers and Win2003 domain controllers.

And the whole "experience" debate has no firm ground. Not only do I not care, but I don't have to believe you. :p After all, I've used all those OSes also, for a great many years. Has no bearing on the conversation.

And did you ever find it strange that everyone else on this board denies your findings? Win98 is NOT a stable OS! For crying out loud, they had to release a second version!

And WinME is not comparable to XP. Not only do they run on totally different kernels (WinME runs on Win98's kernel oddly enough. Wonder where some of the bugs come from?!), but they aren't even related!

Reason why it looks like Win2k has less bugs than XP:

Because Win2k has already had 4 service packs. XP is only on its second. Win98? I don't even recall one, they just bombed it and started again with the "Second Edition" where they tried to make up for their mistakes.

Oh, and please tell me how I can get the latest Adobe Premiere running on Win98, I'd really like to know. While your at it, get drivers for my network card. And would you mind getting new drivers for my sound card? Oh that's right, they discontinued them. Probably because its such an old and outdated system that no one will use it anymore. And I guess those software boxes that say Win2k/XP only are lying. Meh.

Win98 is bundled with IE and Outlook Express also. Get your facts straight. :p

I can make any windows OS produce a memory leak under "controlled situations".

Show me these thousands of programs that had to be rewritten. My old win3.1 games seem to run well on XP. As for Win95 games. As for Win98 games. As for win95/98 office programs, etc.

Sorry, I base my information on experience, not on what articles have to spew on a certain subject.