Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Dec 2010 22:46 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Privacy, Security, Encryption It's no secret that I'm not a particular fan of antivirus software vendors. Other than the excellent Microsoft offering, I haven't yet seen a single antivirus program that doesn't suck the life out of computers, infesting every corner, making machines slow and full of annoying pop-ups. Still, a single license key for Avast! Pro being shared 774651 times? That's a bit harsh.
Order by: Score:
In their place...
by Delgarde on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:03 UTC
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

If I were in their position, I think I'd put out a patch that disabled that key in such a way that it appeared to still be working. Keep sitting around eating resources, but not bother reporting any viruses it might detect. Because anyone installing their anti-virus software from a warez site deserves it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In their place...
by judgen on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:13 UTC in reply to "In their place..."
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The problem with that sollution is that they would get bad reputation for not doing what it is supposed to be doing even though it is infinged upon and has the right to do so.

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Yeah, they would take a brand hit when people started posting "it says it's turned on and up to date but I keep getting my system hosed". The perception would be that it's not effective AV as a result of it being coded to be not effective AV.

There's a different issue though; an AV company actively misdirecting users to place them at risk. It's really not different from an AV company writing viruses on the side to justify the product. They don't do it. If an AV company ever got caught dropping custom malware to promote sales they'd be out of business. The company is shut down, the staff may not be employable at other AV research labs and the class action is only just getting drafted. I think the same potential outcome would keep any rational AV developer from intentionally crippling there product to put users at risk. It's not just the copyright infringer who is harmed by the malware they spread.

It would cause a brand hit but I think there are some more serious legal implications to intentionally putting people at risk.

Reply Score: 3

RE: In their place...
by Elv13 on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:13 UTC in reply to "In their place..."
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

That's basically what start to happen to Norton after 2 weeks (virus are so used to try to disable it first). But would cause bad publicity for them (Avast).

It is a PR stun, but they are right about one point. 95% of those users would not pay in the first place, so if they manage to make 7.5% of them pay, they make a profit while the other 9.1% will downgrade or see Avast blocked. They should do that with all warez licences. Having pirated "pro" version does not cost them anything, they provide no support for them and the fixes/features would be coded anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In their place...
by WorknMan on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: In their place..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

It is a PR stun, but they are right about one point. 95% of those users would not pay in the first place, so if they manage to make 7.5% of them pay, they make a profit


I wonder how many conversions they will get. Proponents of piracy often say that most people who pirate would've never bought the app/content in the first place. Now we could probably put a tangible figure on the number of folks who WOULD have bought (at least in this case).

BTW: I have Avast Pro, which is fully licensed. I didn't really have to, but they were offering a 2yr deal for the price of 1, so figured what the hell. I'd been using the free version and kinda felt bad, because it seems like a good app, and I like the company.

Note that I honestly don't know how good Avast is when it comes to stopping viruses, only that it doesn't slow down my PC. If you look at av-comparatives, most of the better anti-virus programs will catch 95-98% of viruses; you just hope that whatever virus manages to make your way to your machine is not one of the 2-5% that your AV app misses. Basically, it's a crapshoot. (Which is also one of the reasons why common sense will keep you a lot safer than an AV app ever will. The AV app is just a failsafe for me.) Thankfully, I haven't had any virus problems in 12+ years.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: In their place...
by looncraz on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In their place..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

...
Note that I honestly don't know how good Avast is when it comes to stopping viruses, only that it doesn't slow down my PC. ...


I install Avast ( free ) on all my customer's computers in order to protect them better, and longer, than whatever it is they had ( which is normally an expired Norton ). I have probably installed 2-300 copies ( legally, of course ) over the last decade or so.

Norton makes me a lot of money. Infection rates are incredibly high compared to what I see from the Avast machines ( mostly due to young kids downloading music, and their parents finding porn ). Avast doesn't make me any money. Only ONE machine ever managed to actually become infected with a virus or serious mal-ware while running Avast.

Granted, in this day and age, virii aren't really the problem... it's spyware/adware. And that seems to be waning and now we are getting simple worthless toolbars ( like Yahoo! toolbar ). I **HATE** toolbars!!

Ahem... anyway....

--The loon

+1 for Avast!

Reply Score: 7

RE: In their place...
by Morgan on Tue 7th Dec 2010 05:55 UTC in reply to "In their place..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That's not how Avast works as a company though. The reason they offer a free version is a philosophy that even if you can't afford their full product, you still should protect your computer. Not only for your own good, but for the good of those you might otherwise affect with your compromised machine.

It's one of the many reasons I recommend their free version, along with Windows Defender, to my clients. For most every normal user out there the free version is more than enough. The Pro version really only caters to those who need full sandboxing, and they also offer a managed product for corporate environments.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: In their place...
by libray on Tue 7th Dec 2010 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE: In their place..."
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Yes they offer a free product. The pirates are using the paid for Pro version though. They don't deserve anything if they are pirating.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: In their place...
by bhtooefr on Tue 7th Dec 2010 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In their place..."
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

The pirates are running computers connected to the internet.

Your argument is along the lines of, many people illegally copied a design for a ribbed condom, for their own use (not for sale,) from a company that gives away regular condoms (because they really don't cost much to make, and they get plenty of profit from the ribbed condoms, and it makes them look like good corporate citizens.)

They're going to have sex, whether a condom is available or not. And, if they catch a disease, they may well spread it. So, should they be excluded from getting the free condoms, just because they copied the design of the ribbed condoms for their own use?

Not a great analogy, but it's the closest I could come (no pun intended) to one that worked.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: In their place...
by libray on Wed 8th Dec 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In their place..."
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

I didn't have to use an analogy in my argument because none is required. Software piracy is well defined. There is no evidence that anyone downloaded the pro version from Avast and somehow the same serial magically hopped in and registered itself. This was spread for a long amount of time, also removing the idea that 700k people searched for and installed this download by some fluke one day.

The Pro version can be used for a trial, but after that time, it must be registered to continue to run using all of its features. Otherwise, it becomes crippled and features turned off.

So without irrelevant analogies about condoms, what gives you the impression that anyone who uses a stolen version of software should expect it to operate, even though Avast did allow this.

Edited 2010-12-08 00:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: In their place...
by bhtooefr on Wed 8th Dec 2010 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In their place..."
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

What I was reading in your post was that you wanted the free version of Avast to be denied to the pirates, because they pirated the pay-for version.

Is that correct?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: In their place...
by libray on Wed 8th Dec 2010 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: In their place..."
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

On the contrary, I'm only talking about the Pro version which is what all the hoopla is about.

The pirates are using the paid for Pro version though. They don't deserve anything if they are pirating.



You don't get the free version by installing Pro. And you certainly are not using free features when you use Pro and assume the identity of a paying user.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In their place...
by Deviate_X on Wed 8th Dec 2010 16:58 UTC in reply to "In their place..."
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

....I'd put out a patch that disabled that key in such a way that it appeared to still be working ....... but not bother reporting any viruses it might detect....


Clever... so that people can go around bad mouthing your software saying it wont detect s£*t...

It would be better to treat them like trial users and just expire the license at some point in the future

Reply Score: 2

Intriguing...
by umccullough on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:09 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

I clean a lot of Windows machines for people (usually as favors)...

Often times I'll find some expired version of Norton AV or McAfee on their machines which are no longer receiving updates, and I ask them why didn't they just uninstall that and put a free AV product on instead.

I've found that many people assume that the "expired, but paid for" product is better than a free version. I suppose the "you get what you paid for" theory is what they're thinking.

Perhaps that may be why so many people would rather pirate the "Pro" version than use the "stripped down" free version instead.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Intriguing...
by poundsmack on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC in reply to "Intriguing..."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

people just have no idea and don't realize the urgency behind AV, it's not they think expired is better than paid. It's more that when it runs out it's not an issue given much thought and in some cases even noticed by your average end user.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Intriguing...
by Kivada on Tue 7th Dec 2010 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Intriguing..."
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

This is actually one of the things I don't get about Avast Free, it's free, yet it has to be registered.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Intriguing...
by Morgan on Tue 7th Dec 2010 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Intriguing..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I think it's just to keep up with how many free installs are out there. I've been using it on my Windows installs for several years and the only email I ever get from them is to re-register once a year. I never get any spam from them.

Also, their Privacy Policy states that they do not share your information with third parties. I have a feeling they are living up to that promise.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Intriguing...
by Kivada on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:52 UTC in reply to "Intriguing..."
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Yeah, I keep Avast free and ClamWin portable http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/clamwin_portable for Windows, avast is great for your nubs since you can have it scan as the screensaver.

I keep Avast on Ubuntu Studio and Mac OS X with Clam and Clam X, for scanning files going to Windows boxes or to do scans faster.

Reply Score: 1

Totally Unnecessary
by Ford Prefect on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:34 UTC
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

Pirating their stuff is not only against the law, it's also entirely unnecessary.

Absolutely right. A whole industry is kept alive by unnecessary products like this one.

If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.

Now almost everybody accepts this ridicule of computing as status quo.

Edited 2010-12-06 23:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Totally Unnecessary
by WorknMan on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:41 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.


Yeah, and then they'd all have been running Macs (or maybe OS/2?), and they would've still been running anything that promised them naked pics of whoever the hot celeb was at the time. Honestly, would they have been any better off?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by Kasi on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

Well, that all depends on if the hot chicks looked better in this alternate reality.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Totally Unnecessary
by smashIt on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:56 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.

Now almost everybody accepts this ridicule of computing as status quo.


you don't seem to understand the situation
the problem is not that windows has bugs, every os has them
the problem is that it's far beyound the critical mass to make malware profitable and feasible.

the alternative would be a highly fragmentet os-landscape, with all it's drawbacks to software-developement

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough. Now almost everybody accepts this ridicule of computing as status quo.
you don't seem to understand the situation the problem is not that windows has bugs, every os has them the problem is that it's far beyound the critical mass to make malware profitable and feasible. the alternative would be a highly fragmentet os-landscape, with all it's drawbacks to software-developement "

There other significant factors pertaining to the Windows scene that enables malware, and they are: (1) it is routinely expected that the inner workings of executable files are known and knowable ONLY to the authors, (2) the authors are many and varied and often have zero accountability to users, (3) end users routinely download and install un-vettable executables on their systems, (4) there is no one place from which one can obtain a comprehensive set of verifiable apllications, and (5) that the authors of some pieces of software do not necessarily run that same software themselves (as a consequence the software does not necessarily have to be written in the interests of the users).

There are a number of OSes (other than Windows) that do not conform to this paradigm. Coincidentally, those OSes do not have a significant malware problem.

Read into it what you will.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

There other significant factors pertaining to the Windows scene that enables malware, and they are: (1) it is routinely expected that the inner workings of executable files are known and knowable ONLY to the authors, (2) the authors are many and varied and often have zero accountability to users, (3) end users routinely download and install un-vettable executables on their systems, (4) there is no one place from which one can obtain a comprehensive set of verifiable apllications, and (5) that the authors of some pieces of software do not necessarily run that same software themselves (as a consequence the software does not necessarily have to be written in the interests of the users).


1) How many people even in OpenSource applications know the inner workings of an executable ... not very many outside of the developers and the package maintainers. Yes if you spend a considerable amount of your time learning how the software works you theorectically can, however this is not feasible to a vast number of users.

2) This is more true of open source, than closed source. Open Source development has no customers and therefore open source devs are not accountable to anyone except for their reputation. If Microsoft break Windows/Office etc with an update they are financially and legally accountable to their customers to fix it... these things are usually defined via contracts and EULAs etc etc. Bugs exist in open source projects until the developer can be bothered to fix it.

3) Fair point, better user education is the key.

4) Neither is there for Linux, if I want to add mp3 support in Fedora I have to use a 3rd party repo, it is not supported so anything I download can be compromised, therefore it is as good as unverfied.

5) I've written plenty of pieces of software for work and I don't use them myself, it doesn't mean I don't care about those users ... it simply means I don't need to use it, unless I am updating/improving/fixing the software. I care because they are my customers, and I have a duty to do the work, if I don't do something in their interests I don't get paid.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Some interesting discussion ... that is good. This is what a site like this is for.

1) How many people even in OpenSource applications know the inner workings of an executable ... not very many outside of the developers and the package maintainers. Yes if you spend a considerable amount of your time learning how the software works you theorectically can, however this is not feasible to a vast number of users.


You yourself don't need to be able to decipher the inner workings of an executable. All you need is to know that there are many thousands of people who can do so, who did NOT write the code in question, and yet who do use that code themselves. This alone is sufficient to prevent malware from being hidden in the code.

2) This is more true of open source, than closed source. Open Source development has no customers and therefore open source devs are not accountable to anyone except for their reputation. If Microsoft break Windows/Office etc with an update they are financially and legally accountable to their customers to fix it... these things are usually defined via contracts and EULAs etc etc. Bugs exist in open source projects until the developer can be bothered to fix it.


Not at all. Open Source development is perfectly transparent, anyone and everyone may look at the work, and the only reward that people get for doing that work is for others to say: "your solution was the best of all we looked at, and we are going to use it. Well done. Your name goes in the credits." Transparency and meritocracy (where the best available code is chosen via peer reviews) alone (working in a similar fashion to 'survival of the fittest') is enough to ensure quality and fidelity of the code.

3) Fair point, better user education is the key.

Non-sequitur. Users cannot be pre-educated about software that no-one other than the author is allowed to know the inner workings of. The only course of action is to try to clean up the mess after some damage has been done.

4) Neither is there for Linux, if I want to add mp3 support in Fedora I have to use a 3rd party repo, it is not supported so anything I download can be compromised, therefore it is as good as unverfied.


Just because it is not a Fedora-endorsed repo does not mean it is closed source. Other users can, and do, examine the source code of 3rd party repos, and they use that software for mp3 support themselves. If someone magically managed to hide malicious code in plain site in an open source 3rd party repo for Fedora, it would not take more than a day or so for it to be spotted, the offending code commit to be removed, outrage to spread across the internet like wildfire, and that malware "contributor" to be utterly banned forever.

5) I've written plenty of pieces of software for work and I don't use them myself, it doesn't mean I don't care about those users ... it simply means I don't need to use it, unless I am updating/improving/fixing the software. I care because they are my customers, and I have a duty to do the work, if I don't do something in their interests I don't get paid.


True, but not the point. The point is that one CAN trust code that is open, where people who did not write it can examine it and determine how it works and what it does, and where such people (other than the author) with expertise do visibly like that code and use it themselves.

This is the only known, tried and tested means of having malware-free systems in wide use.

Edited 2010-12-07 23:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary
by Nth_Man on Thu 9th Dec 2010 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

If Microsoft break Windows/Office etc with an update they are financially and legally accountable to their customers to fix it...

What????
If that was true, Microsoft would be ruined years ago.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Totally Unnecessary
by jbauer on Tue 7th Dec 2010 00:39 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

Pirating their stuff is not only against the law, it's also entirely unnecessary.

Absolutely right. A whole industry is kept alive by unnecessary products like this one.

If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.

Now almost everybody accepts this ridicule of computing as status quo.


http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/at-least-we-dont-have-any-v...

It never gets old.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Dec 2010 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

LinuxHater? Really?

Right. Put a cuss word in each sentence and somehow everybody takes you seriously. I love the internet.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

LinuxHater? Really?

Right. Put a cuss word in each sentence and somehow everybody takes you seriously. I love the internet.


The thing is he is right, and us lot who have used Linux and other OSes (I have personally used regularly everything from MacOSX to IRIX) a lot and return back to Windows (because we are pragmatic not idealistic, and Windows Works) are fed up with the amount of crap that the FOSS community spreads about Windows ... It is quite sad.

Maybe you would like to read this blog http://piestar.net/. It is more balanced and he argues his point quite well IMO.

As for LinuxHaters post,

"You see, a virus needs to make certain assumptions about your platform. Certain libraries existing, with particular ABI's. Certain data being accessible through particular API's. In other words, a common set of core components that are available on every install of your system so that the virus's code can be small and compact and yet infect as many machines as possible.

Wait, this sounds familiar. Oh yea, that's right: real software needs that too."

I don't see how anyone can argue with that tbh.

I will develop for Windows or MacOSX ... because I know what APIs to expect on those platforms, and big software houses will do exactly the same, and virus writers.

This is exactly the same as script kiddies uses certain exploit scripts and hoping that someone is running a certain version of that OS/Software with that exploit ... they are expecting the defect/API etc to be present.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by Zifre on Tue 7th Dec 2010 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

By linking to Linux Haters you basically lose all credibility.

Your point is correct though. The whole virus thing is only due to market share.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

By linking to Linux Haters you basically lose all credibility. Your point is correct though. The whole virus thing is only due to market share.


It is due to both market share of Windows AND due to the routine distribution of binary executables for Windows within which malware can be hidden.

Edited 2010-12-07 01:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"By linking to Linux Haters you basically lose all credibility. Your point is correct though. The whole virus thing is only due to market share.


It is due to both market share of Windows AND due to the routine distribution of binary executables for Windows within which malware can be hidden.
"

The second point simply isn't true. If you download your executables from torrent sites and rapidshare yes viruses can be hidden. If I download say skype from skype.com, that simply isn't going to happen ... it could possibly happen, but is very unlikely.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"By linking to Linux Haters you basically lose all credibility. Your point is correct though. The whole virus thing is only due to market share.

It is due to both market share of Windows AND due to the routine distribution of binary executables for Windows within which malware can be hidden.


The second point simply isn't true. If you download your executables from torrent sites and rapidshare yes viruses can be hidden. If I download say skype from skype.com, that simply isn't going to happen ... it could possibly happen, but is very unlikely.
"

Strawman argument. Nowhere did I even come close to claiming that all downloadable closed-source executable files contain malware.

However, having said that, I would contend that a significant percentage of malware is hidden within closed-source executable files as a method of delivery. This is NOT the same, as you may be able to figure out if you are paying attention. (Logic 101: saying that all fish live in water is NOT the same as saying that everything that lives in water is a fish).

My point stands.

Edited 2010-12-07 12:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Totally Unnecessary
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Strawman argument. Nowhere did I even come close to claiming that all downloadable closed-source executable files contain malware.

However, having said that, I would contend that a significant percentage of malware is hidden within closed-source executable files as a method of delivery. This is NOT the same, as you may be able to figure out if you are paying attention. (Logic 101: saying that all fish live in water is NOT the same as saying that everything that lives in water is a fish).

My point stands.


No it doesn't. If an executable contains malware it is malware, this is known as a trojan. That is if a program puts malware onto your system covertly as opposed to a web-browser and you tell it to download "virus.exe".

"A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function for the user prior to run or install but instead facilitates unauthorized access of the user's computer system. "It is a harmful piece of software that looks legitimate. Users are typically tricked into loading and executing it on their systems"

From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_%28computing%29

Sounds like what you were describing. Maybe you would like to reexamine your logic ;-).

As for me paying attention, maybe you should elaborate more in the first place to avoid confusion.

Also I find your general tone on these forums (e.g. logic 101 comment) rather rude, I don't like being talked down to and I don't do it to others.

Edited 2010-12-07 13:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Strawman argument. Nowhere did I even come close to claiming that all downloadable closed-source executable files contain malware. However, having said that, I would contend that a significant percentage of malware is hidden within closed-source executable files as a method of delivery. This is NOT the same, as you may be able to figure out if you are paying attention. (Logic 101: saying that all fish live in water is NOT the same as saying that everything that lives in water is a fish). My point stands.
No it doesn't. "

Yes, it does.

My point:
It is due to both market share of Windows AND due to the routine distribution of binary executables for Windows within which malware can be hidden.


Your attempt at rebuttal:
The second point simply isn't true. If you download your executables from torrent sites and rapidshare yes viruses can be hidden. If I download say skype from skype.com, that simply isn't going to happen ... it could possibly happen, but is very unlikely. "


Your attempt at rebuttal fails because it is a strawman arguement (I never claimed what you thought I had claimed, and what you argued against), and because you though I had made a logic error know as "affirming the consequent", when I did no such thing.

My pointing out that trojans (where malware is hidden within a closed-source binary executable purporting to be desirable software) are by far the most prevalent means of malware compromising Windows systems by no means is a claim that all closed-source binary executables contain malware. Logic 101.

Also I find your general tone on these forums (e.g. logic 101 comment) rather rude, I don't like being talked down to and I don't do it to others.


Tough bikkies. Sucks to be you.

Edited 2010-12-07 23:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Totally Unnecessary
by fretinator on Tue 7th Dec 2010 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

(Logic 101: saying that all fish live in water is NOT the same as saying that everything that lives in water is a fish). My point stands.


Logic 110: This is the "Affirming the Consequent" fallacy.

OT: I think another common fallacy is "Correlation = Causation". I just saw that one again today - College graduates more likely to marry. It is not a false statement, but the innuendo is that graduating from college is causing the increase in marriages (and thus smart people marry!). It may just be the increase in income. Causation is too hard to prove, so we just short-cut the process. There a many medical studies that are doing the same thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"(Logic 101: saying that all fish live in water is NOT the same as saying that everything that lives in water is a fish). My point stands.
Logic 110: This is the "Affirming the Consequent" fallacy. OT: I think another common fallacy is "Correlation = Causation". I just saw that one again today - College graduates more likely to marry. It is not a false statement, but the innuendo is that graduating from college is causing the increase in marriages (and thus smart people marry!). It may just be the increase in income. Causation is too hard to prove, so we just short-cut the process. There a many medical studies that are doing the same thing. "

Your point? You have effectively agreed with my logic concerning "affirming the consequent" (I never did affirm the consequent, affirming the consequent was a fallacy and a strawman posted to try to debate my point).

As for "Correlation = Causation" ... you are correct, correlation does not imply causation, but it certainly doesn't rule it out either. When two things are correlated, one of them could well be part of the cause for the other. Not necessarily mind you, but it could well be so.

My point still stands.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by jbauer on Tue 7th Dec 2010 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

By linking to Linux Haters you basically lose all credibility.

Your point is correct though. The whole virus thing is only due to market share.


In only two sentences you have managed to contradict yourself. Congratulations. And say what you want about LH, but if the Linux community would listen to some of the things he wrote, maybe they'd be in a better position and wouldn't need to use every news item related to malware to evangelise their failed operating system.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary
by Zifre on Wed 8th Dec 2010 01:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

In only two sentences you have managed to contradict yourself.

Not really. Having credibility and being correct and two different things entirely.

if the Linux community would listen to some of the things he wrote, maybe they'd be in a better position and wouldn't need to use every news item related to malware to evangelise their failed operating system.

By your logic: if Microsoft would only listen to some of the things we wrote, maybe they'd be in a better position and wouldn't need to use every remark about a strong point of FOSS to evangelize their failed operating system.

How in any way can you call Linux "failed"? Maybe it didn't meet your goals, but it is certainly doing fine for a lot of people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How in any way can you call Linux "failed"? Maybe it didn't meet your goals, but it is certainly doing fine for a lot of people.


Linux is prevalent on mobiles, handhelds, embedded devices which have graphical displays and/or menus (such as GPS units, TVs and PVRs), servers of all kinds, web infrastructure such as routers, mainframes and supercomputers. Linux is available on more CPU architectures and more platforms than any other OS ever.

Linux is beginning to make huge inroads in massive desktop deployments such as recently the Brazil education department.
http://www.mandriva.com/enterprise/en/company/press/brazilian-minis...

In the case of Motorola and their RAZR and then droid phones, using Linux has rescued the business from near-oblivion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobile_Devices#HelloMoto.2C_M...
http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/119159
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/06/10/motorola-droid-still-selling-l...

Membership in the Linux Foundation and similar groups is surging:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Huawei-joins-the-Linux-Found...
http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2010/11/01/china-mobile-j...
http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2008/03/30/adobe-joins-li...
http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2010/10/21/openlogic-join...
http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2010/08/17/palamida-joins...
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/08/qualcomm-joins-the-...

I can't see how any of this fits in with the parent post's strange concept of Linux as a "failed" operating system.

Edited 2010-12-08 02:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I can't see how any of this fits in with the parent post's strange concept of Linux as a "failed" operating system.


Typo. This line should have read "grandparent post's".

Clarification: I did not mean to imply that Linux as a "failed" operating system was the view of the post to which I replied, as clearly it wasn't.

My bad. Sorry about that.

Edited 2010-12-08 04:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by darknexus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not sure I'd have linked to linuxhater to establish credibility although, in this case, he's totally correct though most people won't look past his language to see it. Quite simply, whichever platform is dominant will have the most malware targeted at it. It's that simple. Every os is exploitable, it's just a matter of how much effort it's worth putting in to make your malware profitable. In the case of Linux, it simply isn't worth the effort, pure and simple. Those vulnerable to malware, typically, are desktop users who will do whatever they're told. It's much harder to break into a server, because the people behind them (Windows or *NIX) usually know what they're doing and have them locked down tight.
Now, the malware would be different if it were targeting Linux. The writers wouldn't rely on you running random executables, that simply doesn't happen very often, not to mention that the fragmentation of the Linux platform also, for once, helps. What we'd have seen then, had Linux become the dominant desktop os instead of Windows, would have been much different. Fake repositories with corrupted system components, many more early javascript-based browser attacks, things like that. It would have been different, but it would have been done... and then people would be saying how much more secure Windows is than Linux for the same reasons they argue Linux security now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Not sure I'd have linked to linuxhater to establish credibility although, in this case, he's totally correct though most people won't look past his language to see it. Quite simply, whichever platform is dominant will have the most malware targeted at it. It's that simple. Every os is exploitable, it's just a matter of how much effort it's worth putting in to make your malware profitable. In the case of Linux, it simply isn't worth the effort, pure and simple. Those vulnerable to malware, typically, are desktop users who will do whatever they're told. It's much harder to break into a server, because the people behind them (Windows or *NIX) usually know what they're doing and have them locked down tight. Now, the malware would be different if it were targeting Linux. The writers wouldn't rely on you running random executables, that simply doesn't happen very often, not to mention that the fragmentation of the Linux platform also, for once, helps. What we'd have seen then, had Linux become the dominant desktop os instead of Windows, would have been much different.


Kudos to you. This is the very first time I have seen a Windows supporter own up to this. Well done.

Fake repositories with corrupted system components, many more early javascript-based browser attacks, things like that. It would have been different, but it would have been done...


Questionable. There have been a very few hacks where malware was appended to an application and added to a Linux repository, but they never managed to actually infect many systems. This vector is very poor and ineffective at mass distribution. Meanwhile it is estimated that perhaps 50% of the hundreds of millions of Windows systems in use today are compromised with malware.

and then people would be saying how much more secure Windows is than Linux for the same reasons they argue Linux security now.


I doubt it. Windows would still be the system in which it was possible to hide malware within the inscrutable binary executable files one was expected to routinely download and install, and Linux still wouldn't be.

Edited 2010-12-07 04:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Totally Unnecessary
by metalf8801 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 05:36 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.



Why do say that? I mean what's changed sins 95? computers running Windows 95 needed anti virus software to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.
Why do say that? I mean what's changed sins 95? computers running Windows 95 needed anti virus software to. "

What has changed since 1995 is that the majority of desktop computers now run some version of Windows. Even today Windows maintains some level of backward binary compatibility with Windows circa 1995. Many binary viruses from 1995 could still run under a bare, out-of-the-box-unprotected Windows installation today.

Prior to 1995 one was just as likely to find some other OS on a given desktop computer.

Of the two primary conditions in which to have a virus/malware problem (those being a. a near-monoculture of OS installations, and b. routine end-user-installation of inscrutable binary executables), only the latter of those conditions existed prior to 1995.

Edited 2010-12-07 05:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by gfolkert on Tue 7th Dec 2010 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Wait... when was Microsoft *first* convicted of OS tying to machines?

Go find that out please and re-assess your answer. Oh and also about the consent decree... and a few other things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 7th Dec 2010 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

You missed the point where a networked computer is an insecure computer. The rise of the Internet and "always on broadband" has decreased security more then any other variable. Windows security practices don't help, but constant networking is the bigger problem.

Also, it was a mono-culture back then too. There were a few outlying alt OSs, but the show was run by Microsoft by then.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 7th Dec 2010 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

We have 24x7 broadband Internet now, and in 95 we only had dial up access. (Leased lines were expensive, and ISDN was a rare unicorn.) Now, we download applications from the Internet, and then, software came from a retailer in a box.

You only really needed to scan floppies which had been shared, and new software if you were really obsessive. If you didn't access the Internet or load any software, there was no need to run an AV suite.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Totally Unnecessary
by Morgan on Tue 7th Dec 2010 06:06 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well unfortunately they are absolutely necessary, because the public did not abandon Windows and it looks like it's here to stay. I certainly don't want a hard drive filled with viruses and such, therefore I run AV and AM software.

And before you or anyone else tries to tell me "don't visit shady sites and you won't get viruses", I say bullshit. I fix other people's computers as a part time job, and my flash drives and backup hard drives often become infected as a matter of course. I clean them on a computer not attached to my home network, but there is always the risk that a bug will be missed and could infect my main computer's Windows partition.

As long as Windows exists there will be someone out there taking advantage of all the legacy flaws and holes, and there will always be a need for protective software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well unfortunately they are absolutely necessary, because the public did not abandon Windows and it looks like it's here to stay. I certainly don't want a hard drive filled with viruses and such, therefore I run AV and AM software. And before you or anyone else tries to tell me "don't visit shady sites and you won't get viruses", I say bullshit. I fix other people's computers as a part time job, and my flash drives and backup hard drives often become infected as a matter of course. I clean them on a computer not attached to my home network, but there is always the risk that a bug will be missed and could infect my main computer's Windows partition. As long as Windows exists there will be someone out there taking advantage of all the legacy flaws and holes, and there will always be a need for protective software.


Well, it is necessary as you say for people who run Windows and thereby choose to make themselves vulnerable to malware, and therefore have to bear the cost of clean-ups. As you say, not visiting shady sites in not a solution for such people.

However, the OP is corrrect in saying that products like Avast! are un-necessary, because running Windows is itself un-necessary.

One can have a perfectly viable, highly effective, entirely functional, low-cost, low-maintenance, large scale IT deployment without any sign of Windows.

As an example, the Brazillian government has realised this fact:
http://www.mandriva.com/enterprise/en/company/press/brazilian-minis...

The Brazil Ministry of Education will have up to 1.5 million desktop installations of Mandriva Linux OS (at just $200 per seat all-up cost), remain inter-operable via OpenOffice or LibreOffice, and have no requirement at all to run any anti-malware product such as Avast!

So, from that point of view, a product like Avast! is indeed un-necessary.

Edited 2010-12-07 06:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it isn't unnecessary to run Windows.

It's simply that in your example, Mandriva Linux was sufficient for their needs. If it wasn't they would have chosen something else that was.

Mandriva Linux and its software is not sufficient for my needs, or the needs of the organisation I work for.

We have users running Autocad, AutoCad cannot run on Mandriva, so Mandriva is no good for them.

I use Visual Studio, Visual Studio does not run on Mandriva so it is no good for me. Other IDEs do not have the features wealth of features that Visual Studio has, so the others aren't good enough for me.

We have people that use Visual Basic Macros ... which won't run on OpenOffice ... therefore Openoffice isn't good enough for them.

Different Software is suitable for different tasks, I don't run the same OS on my desktop as my mobile phone, because what I do on my mobile phone is completely different than what I do on my desktop.

I use a linux based webserver because it works well enough for my needs, but if I needed to deploy an ASP.NET application I would use a Windows based one.

Edited 2010-12-07 14:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No it isn't unnecessary to run Windows. It's simply that in your example, Mandriva Linux was sufficient for their needs. If it wasn't they would have chosen something else that was. Mandriva Linux and its software is not sufficient for my needs, or the needs of the organisation I work for. We have users running Autocad, AutoCad cannot run on Mandriva, so Mandriva is no good for them. I use Visual Studio, Visual Studio does not run on Mandriva so it is no good for me. Other IDEs do not have the features wealth of features that Visual Studio has, so the others aren't good enough for me. We have people that use Visual Basic Macros ... which won't run on OpenOffice ... therefore Openoffice isn't good enough for them. Different Software is suitable for different tasks, I don't run the same OS on my desktop as my mobile phone, because what I do on my mobile phone is completely different than what I do on my desktop. I use a linux based webserver because it works well enough for my needs, but if I needed to deploy an ASP.NET application I would use a Windows based one.


All of the equivalent functionality is readily available in Linux. All of it. Not exact replacements for the particular products ... but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Autocad is one example you used, and indeed Autodesk do not produce a version that runs on Linux. They could, it is possible, but they don't.

OK then, here is the best alternative that does run on Linux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricscad

Here is the number two alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VariCAD

Each of these uses the same file formats and can handle the same files as Autocad. Bricscad is very feature-competitive.
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/
http://www.bricsys.com/common/news.jsp?item=340

Just as there is a perfectly viable alternative to Auctocad that runs on Linux, despite your unsupported assertion to the contrary there are also perfectly viable alternatives to all of the others. Despite the very best efforts of Microsoft to convince you that their platform has no competition, it actually does.

Even where you have tried to trap yourself into a Microsoft lock-in situation, as you have done with Visual Basic macros, there are capable products that can support you on another platform.

http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/lswiki.nsf/dx/Lotus_Symphony_VBA_API_do...

Why would you write an ASP.NET application when the majority of web servers don't run Windows?

You simply do not need to run Windows in the significant majority of use cases. Straight up.

Edited 2010-12-07 22:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary
by lucas_maximus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"No it isn't unnecessary to run Windows. It's simply that in your example, Mandriva Linux was sufficient for their needs. If it wasn't they would have chosen something else that was. Mandriva Linux and its software is not sufficient for my needs, or the needs of the organisation I work for. We have users running Autocad, AutoCad cannot run on Mandriva, so Mandriva is no good for them. I use Visual Studio, Visual Studio does not run on Mandriva so it is no good for me. Other IDEs do not have the features wealth of features that Visual Studio has, so the others aren't good enough for me. We have people that use Visual Basic Macros ... which won't run on OpenOffice ... therefore Openoffice isn't good enough for them. Different Software is suitable for different tasks, I don't run the same OS on my desktop as my mobile phone, because what I do on my mobile phone is completely different than what I do on my desktop. I use a linux based webserver because it works well enough for my needs, but if I needed to deploy an ASP.NET application I would use a Windows based one.


All of the equivalent functionality is readily available in Linux. All of it. Not exact replacements for the particular products ... but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Autocad is one example you used, and indeed Autodesk do not produce a version that runs on Linux. They could, it is possible, but they don't.

OK then, here is the best alternative that does run on Linux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricscad

Here is the number two alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VariCAD

Each of these uses the same file formats and can handle the same files as Autocad. Bricscad is very feature-competitive.
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/
http://www.bricsys.com/common/news.jsp?item=340

Just as there is a perfectly viable alternative to Auctocad that runs on Linux, despite your unsupported assertion to the contrary there are also perfectly viable alternatives to all of the others. Despite the very best efforts of Microsoft to convince you that their platform has no competition, it actually does.

Even where you have tried to trap yourself into a Microsoft lock-in situation, as you have done with Visual Basic macros, there are capable products that can support you on another platform.

http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/lswiki.nsf/dx/Lotus_Symphony_VBA_API_do...

Why would you write an ASP.NET application when the majority of web servers don't run Windows?

You simply do not need to run Windows in the significant majority of use cases. Straight up.
"

Firstly AutoDesk will not release a version for Linux because,

1) Which Distro and Version do they target?
2) Their Customers don't demand it. Because There is a perfectly good version for Windows. The price of a Windows License is very small compared to the price of AutoCad, so the department just gets both.

The problem is Lemar2 is that the Autocad alternatives are not AutoCad. Doesn't matter if they can do everything that it does, it fundamentally is not the same. The CAD guys will have to learn the new application, and when it comes to CAD work I can tell you from personal experience this will take a lot of time (took me months to learn 2D stuff in AutoCAD, let alone 3D stuff). It simply isn't viable to expect the CAD guys at our place to stop working so they can learn how to use new CAD software.

Same with alternatives to office etc ... they do exist and you can make it work but the amount of effort you need to put in isn't worth it, when you have something in place that already works.

You can argue all you like about it can be done, but at the end of the day it still isn't viable, because there are other factors than whether the software can just do it ... such as retraining, SLA contracts (we couldn't find one for UMBRACO in the uk, so we decided to use Sharepoint because we could get a SLA contract).

As for the ASP.NET question, it doesn't matter that most of the servers in the world don't run windows server, the ones I use do.

You can skirt around the issue as much as you can about Source Freedom, Feature Parity etc etc. But until it makes sense practically, people/businesses will continue to use what already works.

If and when linux and FOSS software has all the features that Windows and the programs that run on it has ... you might as well have been using Windows in the first place.

Edited 2010-12-08 13:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Totally Unnecessary
by Valhalla on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Firstly AutoDesk will not release a version for Linux because,

1) Which Distro and Version do they target?
2) Their Customers don't demand it.

Autodesk releases top of the line 3d software like Maya, XSI and soon Mudbox for Linux, so number 1) holds no water, it's not like you can't statically link needed libraries.

Number 2) does however, which is that in the field of cad there's obviously not a huge demand for a Linux version, at least not yet.

However when it comes to 3D/SFX for movies/tv then Linux is huge and thus there is a big demand. Which is why there's so many top 3D/SFX packages available for Linux like the mentioned above and others like SideFX, Renderman, Houdini, Maxwell, Nuke, etc. This is also why NVidia is keen on keeping an up-to-date driver available for Linux, it's not because the expect to sell lots of cards to the 'huge' Linux gamer community.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Totally Unnecessary
by Bounty on Wed 8th Dec 2010 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Totally Unnecessary"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

AutoCad is very expensive, if any of those much less expensive alternatives were even close to being acceptable, people would move to them.... Most likely to the windows version of those programs, so they can still use Outlook etc.

But they don't... not even the Windows version. Of a cheaper program. Autocad users must be crazy right? Since you've proven beyond doubt that those other programs are 100% drop in replacements.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Totally Unnecessary
by silviucc on Fri 10th Dec 2010 14:39 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

@parent that started this thread

You are the perfect embodiment of the unreasonable man trying to pi** against the wind.

Just face it bub, Windows is here to stay even if you don't like it and comments like yours are useless and show clearly how uninformed you are.

No platform is 100% safe, and since one does not need a license to use a PC there will be dumb users using Unices, Linux distros, Windows, MacOS... and people that will figure ways to profit from them.

Trolls will be trolls I guess...

Edited 2010-12-10 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by Ford Prefect on Fri 10th Dec 2010 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Thank you for your qualified posting. It seems this is a very important topic to you emotionally, guess otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to fill your posting up with personal insults.

Have a nice day anyway! And btw. thank you for the "everything is the same anyway" argument, I didn't fully look into that yet. Guess that's why it doesn't matter what party you vote for, they all have some corrupt politicians in them.

Haters will be haters.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by OSbunny
by OSbunny on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:34 UTC
RE: Comment by OSbunny
by mrhasbean on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by OSbunny"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

The fact that avast did not invalidate the key means they were ok with the software use. Its not piracy if the developer doesn't mind.


WTF!? That's like saying that girl who pleaded with her rapist to put a condom on wasn't raped because he put the condom on!

I just don't understand people though. I've been using and recommending nothing but the free AV packages since Noah was a lad, and as everyone here knows I'm no fan of Microsoft but since MSE has been out and available for XP+ I've changed every Windows installation I look after to it - it's a superb product, and again, FREE. And while there will always be free software that's crap and / or not ready for prime time, there's lots that is.

The big challenge is the retail store salespeople and those manufacturers who bundle the crapware with the systems under the guise of value adding.

Reply Score: 4

Comment Title
by Bringbackanonposting on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:35 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

Good effort from Avast. Maybe an email to these customers with a "Thanks for evaluating Avast Pro" message and a voucher for 10% off. If only commercial product companies would spell out the costs and subscriptions in "plain english" instead of confusing potential customers. E.g. I am considering moving from Vmware Server to a paid Vmware product - yeah right, every page I go to has a different price on their website. Stupid names for products...Does my head in.

Reply Score: 2

Free pro version
by Janvl on Mon 6th Dec 2010 23:39 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

Avast is unbeatable as a free-AV-programm, for the average home user it will do fine.
I have installed comodo a couple of times, it is free even for commercial users. But Avast is way better, taking much less resources.
For the price they ask for a pro lic who needs norton or macafee? laming your PC, blocking the lan by default?

Reply Score: 1

nod32 doesn't suck
by Berend de Boer on Tue 7th Dec 2010 00:35 UTC
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

Have you looked at nod32? http://www.eset.com/

Doesn't suck the live out of your computer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: nod32 doesn't suck
by Brunis on Tue 7th Dec 2010 09:22 UTC in reply to "nod32 doesn't suck"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

Have you looked at nod32? http://www.eset.com/

Doesn't suck the live out of your computer.


I Agree, i'm a software shopper at my company and we bought some licenses of Nod32 after investigating basically all viable solutions at the time .. it also doesn't annoy you with popups all the time..

When supporting friends and family, i install Microsoft's Security Essentials.

What is described in the article sounds a lot like what Norton used to be..

Reply Score: 1

Thom's idiosyncrasy
by Jason Bourne on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:00 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

Thom you have developed a strange idiosyncrasy for writing headline news: Wait! What? Hm? How on earth? For the life of me! Yes! Ah...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Thom's idiosyncrasy
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:02 UTC in reply to "Thom's idiosyncrasy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh...?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Thom's idiosyncrasy
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:31 UTC in reply to "Thom's idiosyncrasy"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thom you have developed a strange idiosyncrasy for writing headline news: Wait! What? Hm? How on earth? For the life of me! Yes! Ah...


The exclamation mark in the title of this thread topic comes from the actual name of the product that is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avast!

It is called Avast! by its makers. This is not Thom's doing.

Edited 2010-12-07 01:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Thom's idiosyncrasy
by umccullough on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom's idiosyncrasy"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

It is called Avast! by its makers. This is not Thom's doing.


Although it's kind of ironic that the article is about "piracy" ;)

Reply Score: 3

You should take a look at ESET Nod32
by subsider34 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 01:19 UTC
subsider34
Member since:
2010-11-08

"It's no secret that I'm not a particular fan of antivirus software vendors. Other than the excellent Microsoft offering, I haven't yet seen a single antivirus program that doesn't suck the life out of computers, infesting every corner, making machines slow and full of annoying pop-ups."

The Microsoft product is good, but my personal favorite is ESET Nod32 Anti-virus. It has even less of an impact on system performance then Microsoft Security Essentials. Even better, Nod32 focuses on Real-time heuristic scanning, so you don't have to schedule virus scans (you can still run them if you want though). Finally, its compatible with just about everything, and rarely gives out false positives. Also, It's easy to uninstall, and doesn't leave a trace on your computer.

Reply Score: 1

subsider34 Member since:
2010-11-08

Darn it, I took too long trying to edit my previous post! Here's what I tried to add.

**EDIT**
On a side note, ESET Nod32 does have a quirk that can be either good or bad depending on your point of view. Nod32 does not notify you of Program Component Updates or push them to you, except in rare cases (see end note for more info).

For system administrators this is great, as it allows them to take their time and make sure that program updates don't break compatibility with critical software, while still receiving support and Virus Signature updates from ESET. On the flip-side, users are forced to think about their anti-virus software and periodically check eset.com for program updates.

End Note:
What is the difference between a Virus Signature Database update and a Program Component Update (PCU)? (2010, March 2). ESET Knowledgebase. Retrieved December 06, 2010, from http://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN2256

Reply Score: 1

Stop Sucking
by Drumhellar on Tue 7th Dec 2010 02:11 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

I haven't yet seen a single antivirus program that doesn't suck the life out of computers, infesting every corner, making machines slow and full of annoying pop-ups.


In regards to the performance aspects, Tom's recently did a roundup of AV apps, benchmarking system performance while the AV was installed, and were fairly surprised.

In mose cases, there was only an imperceptible loss in performance, usually within the margin of error.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-virus-virus-scanner-perfor...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Stop Sucking
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 04:04 UTC in reply to "Stop Sucking "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I haven't yet seen a single antivirus program that doesn't suck the life out of computers, infesting every corner, making machines slow and full of annoying pop-ups.
In regards to the performance aspects, Tom's recently did a roundup of AV apps, benchmarking system performance while the AV was installed, and were fairly surprised. In mose cases, there was only an imperceptible loss in performance, usually within the margin of error. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-virus-virus-scanner-perfor... "

FTA you linked:
Having said that, it’s also true that the presence of security software isn’t undetectable in all circumstances. We do see an increase in application launch times with a virus scanner installed, but the only significant wait time is a couple seconds added on the first launch of a program. Subsequent launches appear to be cached, and the wait time is almost imperceptible.


I have had Windows fans claim to me that a couple of seconds extra wait time on first launch of OpenOffice compared with MS Office is a valid reason to shun OpenOffice. No consistency amongst Windows supporters, is there?

The linked article doesn't talk about installation performance either, which is admittedly done far less frequently than loading an application.

Also, let's not forget the whole primary problem in the first place in that the executable files that users are routinely expected to install come from a whole range of different sources, only some of which can be trusted, most of which do not offer verification of the install packages, and the originators are the only people who have rights to know what is actually hidden within the executables.

Edited 2010-12-07 04:07 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Stop Sucking
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop Sucking "
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well the main problem with OpenOffice it isn't as good as Microsoft Office as it is a poor clone of it (like most FOSS software). I would care more about that deficiency than the startup time.

That is because nobody cares about install times by your own admission, once I install the hulking beast that is Visual Studio it is done until the next time I have to Install Windows, which is once every 2 or 3 years when I upgrade my computer or my hardrive goes kaput. Not reall a big deal, in that time I can make myself a coffee and have a chat with my collegues while it finishes doing whatever it does.

They aren't rountinely expected to install from a whole range of different sources. Most Windows software that a normal person runs either is built into the OS these days, comes preinstalled, or comes from a big name such as microsoft, google (chrome, picasa etc), apple(itunes) or adobe (flash, air, photoshop). Most games are bought either through steam or from a shop.

Most top ranked software download sites also have a zero malware and are usually linked by the creator of the software as download mirrors.

User education from individuals such as ourselves is more helpful than lumbering them with a system which does not do the job (Linux).

Windows has one major advantage over linux, they don't have to do the death march upgrade to get new software. This it is a non issue on Windows.

Edited 2010-12-07 19:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Stop Sucking
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stop Sucking "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well the main problem with OpenOffice it isn't as good as Microsoft Office as it is a poor clone of it (like most FOSS software). I would care more about that deficiency than the startup time. That is because nobody cares about install times by your own admission, once I install the hulking beast that is Visual Studio it is done until the next time I have to Install Windows, which is once every 2 or 3 years when I upgrade my computer or my hardrive goes kaput. Not reall a big deal, in that time I can make myself a coffee and have a chat with my collegues while it finishes doing whatever it does. They aren't rountinely expected to install from a whole range of different sources. Most Windows software that a normal person runs either is built into the OS these days, comes preinstalled, or comes from a big name such as microsoft, google (chrome, picasa etc), apple(itunes) or adobe (flash, air, photoshop). Most games are bought either through steam or from a shop. Most top ranked software download sites also have a zero malware and are usually linked by the creator of the software as download mirrors.


OpenOffice is perfectly fine for well over 90% of users.

Despite all of your points above, about 40% to 50% of Windows systems that are in use and which are tested turn out to be compromised with malware. 94% of the malware written targets Windows. About two million new pieces of malware for Windows have appeared in the last year alone. 42.6 percent were Trojans, making "hiding the malware in a binary executable for download" by far the most prevalent way to deliver malware to users Windows systems:

http://www.daniweb.com/news/story310770.html

User education from individuals such as ourselves is more helpful than lumbering them with a system which does not do the job (Linux).


User education won't protect Windows systems ... half of them are already compromised.

Despite your unsupported assertion, Linux does do the job. Very well indeed, for the vast majority of use cases for a desktop system.

Windows has one major advantage over linux, they don't have to do the death march upgrade to get new software. This it is a non issue on Windows.


WTF????

You are going to have to expalin that one. Upgrading software on Linux is far, far easier than it is on Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Stop Sucking
by lucas_maximus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stop Sucking "
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The problem being that openoffice is not good enough for the other 10%.

So why would I bother using the poor copy when the full office suite can be bought for less than £69 in the uk? I spend more on groceries each week.

As for software updates ... I cannot install the lastest version of Firefox on say Redhat 7.3 (which was released after Windows XP) but I can on Windows 2000 which is 11 years old now. If I want the latest software on an older distro (even sometimes only 6 months or a year old) I have 3 options.

1) Upgrade the entire OS (this is what is known as the death march, since something always breaks with Linux once you upgrade OS and I have been using Linux on and off for 10 years now, so don't tell me it doesn't).
2) Hope someone backports the software for me (unlikely since most users have completely number 1 and there is no incentive for the distro maintainer)
3) Try compiling it myself (which can be difficult).

Even when you update software between releases of whatever Linux flavor you are using ... you have to download hundreds of updates to other components which you program relies on.

With windows most software has auto update, Windows itself (especially Vista and 7) have very good auto update mechanisms for Windows and any microsoft software (I don't even know it being updated until I am prompted for a reboot).

It would be nice Lemur2 if most of your critisms of Windows aren't 10 years old. Most of the problems with Windows you point out are critisms of Windows XP pre service pack 1, and I would agree with you .... but these issues are fixed now.

Maybe you haven't had the pleasure of using Windows 7. It is damn good OS and is really stable, especially compared to Windows XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stop Sucking
by dagw on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop Sucking "
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

no consistency amongst Windows supporters, is there?

Of course there isn't. There are several million Windows users, each using Windows for their own reasons. My reasons for using Windows is probably very different from someone else's reasons for using Windows. Why on earth would you expect any sort of consistency?

Reply Score: 2

Stolen vs. Sold
by Almafeta on Tue 7th Dec 2010 03:36 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Can anyone compare copies stolen vs. copies sold? That is, what are the sales figure for Avast Pro?

Reply Score: 2

Nice entertainment
by frajo on Tue 7th Dec 2010 07:38 UTC
frajo
Member since:
2007-06-29

AV discussions are always kind of nice entertainment. It's like watching horse coach owners from a past century debating whether transport and travel would be possible without horses.

AV software is needless for me. For more than two decades now I never had AV software or malware on my machines.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 7th Dec 2010 09:05 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Avast isn't the only company collecting piracy data. But they are one of the few awesome enough to release it!

And the author is way off here: "the article notes 774651 people, but that's nonsense; the number of people is most likely much smaller than that"

It's not like Avast is counting torrent downloads that may have never been installed. They're counting real installations of Avast, each done by a real person, each on a real computer, each using that key.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Luminair
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Dec 2010 09:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not like Avast is counting torrent downloads that may have never been installed. They're counting real installations of Avast, each done by a real person, each on a real computer, each using that key.


I'm a household of one, with three Windows 7 machines. One person, counted as three (were I stupid enough to use Avast, and stupider enough to use the key).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Bounty on Tue 7th Dec 2010 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"It's not like Avast is counting torrent downloads that may have never been installed. They're counting real installations of Avast, each done by a real person, each on a real computer, each using that key.


I'm a household of one, with three Windows 7 machines. One person, counted as three (were I stupid enough to use Avast, and stupider enough to use the key).
"

To contrast that, I work in an invironment where many people use few computers. I don't think we have good data to honestly come to a conclusion about the number of keys/person. Also, it's probably pointless.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 8th Dec 2010 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

That is okay, I just think you're atypical ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Tue 7th Dec 2010 11:21 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

I still doubt this isn't as used as many times as the key for Windows XP OEM that starts ... FCKWT

Reply Score: 0

Antivirus?
by chris666 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 12:31 UTC
chris666
Member since:
2010-12-07

Since moving to Linux 2 years ago, I have never looked back at the hassle of anti-virus, ad-supported software and slow computing. I can't see hackers and malware writers letting M***** rubbish off the hook anytime soon.

Reply Score: 1

Here we go again
by PhilCassacoff on Tue 7th Dec 2010 14:10 UTC
PhilCassacoff
Member since:
2010-12-07

I'd love to see how the business world would work without those expected libraries/exec's on Windows. Try making software and having zero idea what your client is going to be running.

Linux sucks. Yes, I know what I'm doing with it. For me, I like using it for simple file servers/etc. It's a pain in the ass to do 9 out of 10 things I take for granted on Windows. Graphics are a joke, and while I'm aware I can hack config files and install drivers which require other libraries and blah blah blah; I don't want to *have* to. And thats why it's never going to hit the desktop market as a whole.

Your only shot will be Chrome, and just wait till people's Internet Connections go down. ALL these hosted apps and services are going to mean exponential increases in traffic - and 99% of people will still be paying comcast for the cheapest service possible.

Windows 7 was done right. We have over 1k users on it in our client roster, and we haven't had a single bit of malware get through.

PS - Open Office is a joke. Google Apps crushes it, and neither even compare to Office past the ability to open a .doc or .docx/etc.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Tue 7th Dec 2010 17:51 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

As far as 1995 and MS vs. Linux. If Linux won and we were all using it, I'm pretty sure people (ya know, 'those people' not us OSnews readers) would still be double clicking unexpected attachments from people "they know," followed by typing in a password with elevated privileges so they could see the gerbil Santa dance.

AV is for promiscuous people; regardless of OS.

Reply Score: 4

Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

Antivirus software is evidently not one of them:

"Other than the excellent Microsoft offering, I haven't yet seen a single antivirus program that doesn't suck the life out of computers, infesting every corner, making machines slow and full of annoying pop-ups. "

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 7th Dec 2010 19:59 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

I use the free version and I am perfectly happy.

Edited 2010-12-07 20:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

while I do really like the limited resource hit MSE has on a system versus even the other free options; I'm not seeing it as "excellent" among AV though. It's still not toping the charts for known signature and new detections.

Now, with the kind of user base Microsoft could generate with MSE; they stand a pretty solid chance of growing a heck of an effective signature list. I'm not questioning it because it's a Microsoft product but because it's still pretty new and it's hitting average to below average in third party testing.

Reply Score: 3

unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I really can't understand why anyone would risk getting malware laden pirated software. There are thousands of alternative good freeware and opensource apps for Windows and Mac. Disclaimer: I use Debian.

Reply Score: 2

Bigger question.
by oiaohm on Tue 7th Dec 2010 22:50 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

How many people knew they were running illegal copy.

I am serious. Lot of cases I have handled I would say over 60 percent would have been someone else offering to help them out who installed the illegal version. And some cases charged money for it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bigger question.
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 01:00 UTC in reply to "Bigger question."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How many people knew they were running illegal copy. I am serious. Lot of cases I have handled I would say over 60 percent would have been someone else offering to help them out who installed the illegal version. And some cases charged money for it.


Once again an end user who is not a computing expert ends up getting shafted by the Windows ecosystem.

My point is that there is only one tried and tested way for end users who are not experts to get an easy-to-use, easy-to-maintain-and-update, malware free, fully functional, entirely legal and low cost system ... and that way is to avoid Windows.

Reply Score: 2

Why bother?
by Al2001 on Fri 10th Dec 2010 19:24 UTC
Al2001
Member since:
2005-07-06

As someone who stopped pirating the minute free software became good enough I don't understand the mentality behind the people who do this.

My guess is their the same people who MUST have photoshop, MUST have MS Office, and use the password 123456 as their paypal password.

Reply Score: 2