| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: i think this site slows my computer |
 |
|
sometimes i get on some sites and it seems some make computer run slow or this my imagination?
if you switch to msn groups its all free and you can read and write off line fast and get all messages by emails
same with yahoo groups but i dont like yahoo much because they get the email or everyone sees it
_________________
Puzzling Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinF8BiDNaU |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yet msn sucks too becasue if you click twice you lose the post from going in
i think its that picture banner at top of page that slows the site down
_________________
Puzzling Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinF8BiDNaU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louise
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
My computer seems to run reasonably ok on this site
My computer specs are:
CPU = Intel P4, Socket 478, 3Ghz, 800Mhz FSB
Motherboard = Asrock P4i65G
Memory = 1GB DDR 400Mhz
Graphics = Nvidia Geforce 6200 AGP, 256MB
HDD = 2x 160GB Seagate IDE
All built with love by my fair hand of course.
_________________
One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| festival of snickers wrote: | yet msn sucks too becasue if you click twice you lose the post from going in
i think its that picture banner at top of page that slows the site down |
Run a disk clean regularly.
Set your browser to clear your history/objects and cookies
Switch to opera a much faster browser
delete any unwanted programs on your pc
I hope i have not just stated the obvious, dont be offended if i have.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd start with a defrag and check your browsers up to date. Defrag should deal with any dodgy clusters that might be slowing down your windows installation, browser update should help if its banner delivery thats causing the slow down. I;d also run task manager in the background, see if somethings spiking your processor - some banner adverts kill my pc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ah computers... like your granny the all get old and slow and just annoying to be around.
best bet? reformat the entire thing and reinstall windows. get rid of all the pre-installed windows stuff and run what you can portably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Windows? With its unique serial number tied to your home adress and communicating with M$ all day long? unless you have a pirate version in which case your IP is logged and waiting for the day the Supreme Court give em permission to knick you!
www.ubuntu.org mate. It runs brilliantly on slower PC's too |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ooooh linux great if you want to stop yourself getting most good software that is released. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lookup WINE - it allows you to run any windows software on your *Nix PC, without the added spyware, malware etc that infests windows boxes.
Open Office beats MS Office hands down for speed and flexibility, most SMTP and HTTP programmes are now open source and have the added advantage of mailnly being completely and utterly free. The ubuntu universe allows you to load a window a bit like the Add/Remove Programmes console, except all the programmes listed can be downloaded and installed for free, without cracks, hacks or root kits required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Lookup WINE - it allows you to run any windows software on your *Nix PC, without the added spyware, malware etc that infests windows boxes."
no wine lets your run SOME windows with bugs. it is far far from perfect. and really you should never get malware in the first place.
i have nothing against free software in fact 99% of my computer is free and portable. but linux is not the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but linux is not the answer. |
It is for some, especially "Ubuntu". Still on the learning curve and it is NEVER as easy as people make it out to be but I was up and running and on the Internet within an hour. All for free and no viruses!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"All for free and no viruses!!"
viruses for linux systems do exist. it's a total myth that only microsoft systems get that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I use both Windows Vista (32-bit) and Ubuntu (64-bit). I prefer Ubuntu for daily use when I'm working in university and I prefer Windows for games (obviously). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | viruses for linux systems do exist. it's a total myth that only microsoft systems get that. |
We will agree to differ. Only a few viruses ever affected Linux and they were relatively harmless, and only poorly managed systems could be attacked. Linux has been effectively a totally virus-free os. As more and more people turn to Linux based systems however, then more viruses will be written for Linux but their success will depend on the lack of computer knowledge of users, leaving their systems wide open. There were only 5 known Unix/Linux viruses in 2000 although the list is growing now. Unlike Windows the operating system itself is much more robust and has far greater resistance to attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
| Quote: | The Linux operating system, along with Unix and other Unix-like computer operating systems, are generally regarded as well protected against computer viruses. However, viruses can potentially damage insecure Linux systems and impact their operation, and even possibly spread to other systems.
Like other Unix systems, Linux implements a multi-user environment where users are granted specific privileges and there is some form of access control implemented. As such, viruses typically have less of an ability to change and impact the host system. That is why none of the viruses written for Linux, including the ones below, have ever propagated successfully. Also, the security holes that are exploited by the viruses have been fixed in the most recent versions of the Linux kernel, so no longer pose any concern as long as the kernel is updated regularly.
Virus scanners are available for Linux systems in order to scan for Windows viruses and protect downstream Email users with Windows systems.
The following is a list of known Linux malwares:
Worms:
Adm
Adore
Cheese
Devnull
Kork
Lapper
Linux/Lion (also known as Ramen)
Mighty
Slapper
Computer viruses:
Alaeada
Binom
Bliss
Brundle
Diesel
Kagob
MetaPHOR (also known as Simile)
OSF.8759
RST [1]
Staog
Vit
Winter
Winux (also known as Lindose and PEElf)
ZipWorm
|
Compare the small list above with the thousands of viruses that are known to affect Windows.
Last edited by blackcat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"We will agree to differ."
no you agreed with me that linux systems can get viruses.
"However, viruses can potentially damage insecure Linux systems"
insecure meaning not kept properly up to date and without protection. the same for every other system in the world.
and the reason why the list is small is not because it's difficult it's because microsoft is a bigger target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | no you agreed with me that linux systems can get viruses. |
I didn't say they could not. I say they do not and that my Linux system has no viruses and does not need any anti-virus software which is essential for Windows.
| Quote: | | insecure meaning not kept properly up to date and without protection. the same for every other system in the world. |
Insecure meaning having so many holes in the core of the os it is vulnerable. Linux is MUCH more secure than Windows.
Which part of | Quote: | | That is why none of the viruses written for Linux, including the ones below, have ever propagated successfully |
do you not understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/skoll/anti-virus.php
| Quote: | Linux a Virus Target?
In an article on vnunet.com, two executives of anti-virus firms opined that Linux would be the next virus target. Here are excerpts from the article:
"Of course we will see more and more attacks on Windows, but Linux will be a target because its use is becoming more widespread," said Raimond Genes, European president for antivirus at Trend Micro. "It is a stable OS, but it's not a secure OS."
Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said: "In fact it's probably easier to write a virus for Linux because it's open source and the code is available. So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular."
I will be charitable and call these statements "myths" or "misperceptions" rather than other nastier but perhaps more accurate terms. Let's examine and debunk the myths.
Myth: Widespread use equals widespread abuse
This myth goes as follows: Product X (Windows, Outlook, whatever) has more security problems because it is far more widely used than Product Y (Linux, Mutt, whatever).
In fact, the Apache Web server is far more widely used than Microsoft's IIS (Source: Netcraft), but has suffered far fewer security problems (Source: defacement archives).
Update: I have had several comments saying that this survey reveals that Windows computers account for about 50% of Web servers, but that Apache runs more web sites. Some people claim that under this metric, therefore, IIS is more widely used than Apache. Even if I accept these figures, the fact is that the defacement archives show Windows defacements outnumbering non-Windows defacements 62 to 38. From this, I still conclude that the number of vulnerabilities in a piece of software does not necessarily correlate with its popularity.
Myth: Linux is not a secure OS
In fact, no commodity OS is "secure". Security is a process, not a product, as dozens of security experts keep reminding us. Linux does, however, have important security enhancements compared to consumer-level Windows operating systems: File permissions and separate user accounts can greatly mitigate the damage caused by malicious software. If all of the security features built-into Linux are properly configured and enabled, Linux is a highly secure system.
For those who need even more security, the U.S. National Security Agency provides a Security Enhanced Linux distribution which contains advanced security features beyond anything found in Microsoft operating systems.
Myth: It is easier to write viruses if you have the OS source code
I would suggest just the opposite: If source code is widely-available, many organizations with an interest in security (such as the NSA, for example) can audit the code, correct security problems, and feed these corrections back to the main code tree.
Why is it that tens of thousands of viruses exist for closed-source systems like Windows (with several of them actively propagating around the Internet as you read this), while only a handful of pathetic "proof-of-concept" viruses have been written for Linux, and none has propagated to any extent?
Why is it that open-source Apache has a far better security record than closed-source IIS?
Why Linux viruses are unlikely
In order for an e-mail virus to propagate, it must be able to:
Enter the target machine
Execute on the target machine
Propagate itself
Linux makes steps 2 and 3 very difficult.
Social Engineering to Enable Execution
Under Windows, a file is marked as "executable" based on its filename extension (.exe, .com, .scr, etc.) Encoding metadata (like file type) into the file name is a very bad idea and has horrendous security consequences. Encoding metadata in this way allows for the simple-minded social-engineering attacks we see on windows: "Click here for a cool screensaver!!!"
Such an attack under Linux would go like this: "Save this file; open up a shell; enable execute permissions on the file by typing 'chmod a+x filename', and then run it by typing './filename'."
Obviously, the Linux permissions system makes such a social-engineering attack very difficult.
Software Flaws to Enable Execution
Another means by which viruses can execute are by exploiting bugs in e-mail client software. Both Outlook and the various Linux mail clients have had their share of bugs, and this is indeed a risk, even on Linux. However, because of the overwhelming uniformity of Windows desktops, a virus which exploits a software bug in Outlook is far more likely to propagate than one which exploits a software bug on a Linux e-mail client. This is simply because of the huge array of Linux e-mail clients in use. At any given time, only a small portion of all Linux users are vulnerable to e-mail client bugs.
Virus Propagation
To propagate itself, an e-mail virus must re-mail itself to others. On Windows/Outlook, this is simple, because there is a uniform, well-known interface for obtaining address lists and sending e-mail. On Linux, this is harder. There is no uniform way for a virus to read your address book, so a Linux virus would have to work harder to propagate itself.
Linux in the Future
There is a trend under Linux to build complex, rich desktop environments which allow rich interaction between programs. These environments could, if not designed correctly, increase the chances for viruses to execute and propagate. So far, however, the designers of these environments seem to be following sensible design and security procedures. No-one, for example, has built a Linux e-mail client which automatically executes an attachment with just one mouse click.
Challenge to Anti-Virus Companies is Over
My anti-virus challenge, which had been running since 5 December 2001, is now (7 May 2002) over. No-one managed to meet the challenge, although one person came close.
Copyright © 2001 David F. Skoll
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There have been viruses written for Linux, but only a tiny fraction of the number written for closed-source operating systems such as Windows. Anti-virus software is not needed for Linux because if a threat is detected in Linux, any member of the community can write a fix or update which can be uploaded to the distribution's repository.
Linux is, by nature, far more secure than Windows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Linux because if a threat is detected in Linux, any member of the community can write a fix or update which can be uploaded to the distribution's repository. "
there is of course a very big converse to that.
" I say they do not"
yet they do, just not as many.
"Linux system has no viruses and does not need any anti-virus software which is essential for Windows. "
it's not essential if you're not a tard about what you do on the internet i run xp sp2 and do not have run/real time virus protection and haven't had a virus. this is because i don't go around poking into bad websites and opening attachments from strangers.
a computer is as safe as it's user is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | a computer is as safe as it's user is |
There is an obvious truth to that statement but the fact remains that Unix based systems are inherently more secure than Windows for the reasons described in the above posts. It is not advisable to go without anti-virus software using Windows even if you are a computer expert. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to forego anti-virus software if you run a Unix based pc as the likelihood of an attack/damage is remote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"It is not advisable to go without anti-virus software using Windows even if you are a computer expert."
12 years and i've never had a single one.
complacency is the road of the damned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Most people have never had a virus. The fact you have never had one means little. I know people who smoked all their lives and lived to be very old without getting cancer but it is not a recommended lifestyle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| most people have had some form of malware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just curious, but if you have no anti virus software, how do you know you have no virii?
Also, I'm assuming you're being sarcastic when you say all you need to do to avoid virii is stay clear of web sites and email attachments, seeing as the first network aware worm came out about 6 years ago now? Presumably you're on New Technology file system with arbritary services disabled? Of course you'll have some sort of realtime malware protection to prevent spyware rooting your registry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Just curious, but if you have no anti virus software, how do you know you have no virii?"
i have no run or real time protecttion i have a scanner which is ran about once a month.
also even if i didn't have that virus's screw up your computer so you would notice.
"Of course you'll have some sort of realtime malware protection to prevent spyware rooting your registry?"
nope just that scanner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How would you notice if you'd been zombied? If your box is compromised and sitting waiting for a ZM prompt to start ddosing amazon (which cert have recently highlighted as one of current black hats biggest targets). Do you netstat a lot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
i have no time yet to read all these posts here
i have linux on an 80 gig drive thats just sits around which i could put back in computer
so if i get the Ubuntu it may work easier than the fedora 5?
fedora worked ok except it wouldnt work on internet or i couldnt get the modem to work
computers are tiring lately
get this free "advanced windows care"
_________________
Puzzling Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinF8BiDNaU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
snickers, ubuntu works like a dream mate. I installed it on an old Compaq laptop, half the hardwares a bitch to install under windows, in ubuntu it was all up and running and I was on the internet within 2 seconds of installation.
Nice clean gui, enormous info base/FAQ etc etc. I splashed out £20 at PCWorld to get all the distros on disk along with a nice chunky manual telling me how to use it - great little OS mate. Dell recently started shipping it on some of its machines so it must be good![/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
festival of snickers
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 733
Location: the worlds greatest leper colony usa
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kc wrote: | snickers, ubuntu works like a dream mate. I installed it on an old Compaq laptop, half the hardwares a bitch to install under windows, in ubuntu it was all up and running and I was on the internet within 2 seconds of installation.
Nice clean gui, enormous info base/FAQ etc etc. I splashed out £20 at PCWorld to get all the distros on disk along with a nice chunky manual telling me how to use it - great little OS mate. Dell recently started shipping it on some of its machines so it must be good! |
[/quote]
ok thanks maybe ill try to find it in linux magazine otherwise my dial up is too slow to download
i had the feeling with fedora they made it easier for Europeans for the dial up
_________________
Puzzling Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinF8BiDNaU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
