Qchem Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 This is a bit but the plural of virus is viruses, not virii. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 virii is a net slang word for viruses ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 This is a bit but the plural of virus is viruses, not virii.Good to know. I was always unsure if it's viruses or virii. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Just in case you really wanted to know the semantics of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus In the English language, the standard plural of virus is viruses. This is the most frequently occurring form of the plural, both when referring to a biological virus and when referring to a computer virus. The less frequent variations viri and virii are virtually unknown in edited prose, and no major dictionary recognizes them as alternative forms. Their occurrence can be variously attributed to hypercorrection formed by analogy to Latin plurals such as radii; idiosyncratic use as jargon among a group, such as computer hackers; the incorrect assumption that the word is of Greek origin, requiring an -i plural; and deliberate word play, such as on BBSs (see, e.g.: leet). To complicate matters further, viri is already used in Latin as the plural of vir, meaning "man" (thus making viri mean "men") I hope that clears it all up :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 No shit! To clear things up you post a text which says "To complicate matters further". :P :D p.s. yes, everything is clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 :P I only took the first paragraph or so, as I really didn't want to cause a too in-depth off topic post! :D Lucky I didn't post the first link I found :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted February 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 What's wrong with complicated? :lol: I prefer to use language that can be attributable to its subject. "Viruses" is biological for me, where "virii" is technological. And, since language is as alive as those who speak it, I am not bothered by creative terminology at all. B) Many many words in the dictionary today were not there 100 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 more than you ever wanted to know about the plural of 'virus' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Oh, I just found that there is a free AVG antivirus for Linux desktops! http://free.grisoft.com/doc/20/lng/us/tpl/v5 http://free.grisoft.com/doc/100/lng/us/tpl/v5 Apparently it's quite new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Just for your interest: There are currently 948 viruses for Linux, most of them can't really harm your system though (unless you run your system as root permanently, without firewalls, open up all ports/services and do other nonsense). http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruslistfind?...rus&words=linux. For Windows, there are a whopping 71398 known viruses, for Mac 4650. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Just for your interest: There are currently 948 viruses for Linux, most of them can't really harm your system though (unless you run your system as root permanently, without firewalls, open up all ports/services and do other nonsense).http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruslistfind?...rus&words=linux. For Windows, there are a whopping 71398 known viruses, for Mac 4650. If you look at the search results, you'll find those numbers are more than a little misleading. Backdoor.Win32.Biomac.c doesn't actually affect the Mac, but the search result includes it. Try searching for OS X, you'll get three windows viruses and a single Mac one (which doesn't even self propogate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Oh... shessssh... what do we learn: Don't trust anyone. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linux_learner Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 i have some information that might shead some light on the subject. a worm for mac, (the iChat worm), acts this way: “latestpics.tgz”, it installs itself at * /tmp/latestpics * /tmp/latestpics.tgz * /tmp/latestpics.tar.gz * /tmp/hook * /tmp/apphook * /tmp/pic.gz * /tmp/apphook.tar * /tmp/pic The worm deletes ~/Library/InputManagers and copies /tmp/apphook to the folder ~/Library/InputManagers/apphook/apphook.bundle/Contents/MacOS so that it runs every time an application starts. while this is mac, mac runs on bsd, which is a *nix, and therefore demonstrates how a worm would work. however, as typical fashion of opensource, the mac vulnerability was patched about a year ago. now virus being a virus, not a worm or a trojan, while theorectically possible, would be a bit harder. basically, for a virus to work, it would have to be put in a package to effect the entire system. putting a virus in a doc or pic for linux, would be a waste of time, as all it would do is effect the users account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 putting a virus in a doc or pic for linux, would be a waste of time, as all it would do is effect the users account. I wouldn't say so. I don't know how is it for you, but the most valuable information for me is stored in the user's account. I can restore system from cd's in less than 20 minutes, but the same can not be said about my documents and mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linux_learner Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 putting a virus in a doc or pic for linux, would be a waste of time, as all it would do is effect the users account. I wouldn't say so. I don't know how is it for you, but the most valuable information for me is stored in the user's account. I can restore system from cd's in less than 20 minutes, but the same can not be said about my documents and mp3. i was refering to someone coding a virus into a doc or a pic. you'd have to download it, then execute it, just for it to work. then even if it did work, it would only effect your users account. the chances of this senario working is slim, which is why we may never see a virus for *nix. now a worm is different. we have seen a handfull of those. the patch is usually out before the worm. as for me, i make back up of my data. on another partition, to my gmail account, and cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.