Win32/RAMNIT.A Anyone?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Wolf K on 5 Aug 2010 18:13 On 05/08/2010 17:42, David H. Lipman wrote: > From: "Wolf K"<wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> > > | On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote: > | [...] >>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not make >>> it >>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call >>> yourself >>> a "professional." > > > > > | Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology > | in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then > | all bets are off. > > | It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage, > | "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a > | professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of > | communication is "Adapt to your audience." > > You can't call all malware a virus just because you use anti virus software. It doesn't > work that way and is a misconception and misnomer. > > If a majority of people have a misperception of a concept, their majority does not change > the concept. > > Quite true, but I'm not talking about the concept, I'm talking about words. Words refer. What they refer to is governed by context. One of the most difficult things for professionals to accept is that their professional context is, well, limited. Most people aren't professionals, but that doesn't stop them from borrowing professional terms. And of course when they borrow, they change the referents of the terms. You can scold all you like about misperceptions (and I do sympathise, believe me), but the fact is that the terms "anti-virus" and "virus" applied to computers have become generalised in common usage. Fact is that it happens in all professions. Professionals develop special and precise terminology, their work impinges on the rest of us, and we borrow their terms. And immediately fudge, fuzz, and often thoroughly misunderstand the concepts. Most of the time, it makes no practical difference. FWIW, my teeth grate when I hear people use "substitute" for "replace", or "reticent" for "hesitant", or - well, you get the idea. I hope. ;-) Can I stop people form misusing these words. 'Course not. wolf k.
From: Wolf K on 5 Aug 2010 18:13 On 05/08/2010 17:44, David H. Lipman wrote: > From: "Ant"<not(a)home.today> > > | "FromTheRafters" wrote: > >>> If I send someone out for coke, I sure don't want them coming back with >>> a pepsi. :oD > > | Especially when you're expecting the finest Bolivian marching powder! > > > I tried Coke once but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. :-) > LOL wolf k.
From: David H. Lipman on 5 Aug 2010 19:12 From: "Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> | Quite true, but I'm not talking about the concept, I'm talking about | words. Words refer. What they refer to is governed by context. | One of the most difficult things for professionals to accept is that | their professional context is, well, limited. Most people aren't | professionals, but that doesn't stop them from borrowing professional | terms. And of course when they borrow, they change the referents of the | terms. You can scold all you like about misperceptions (and I do | sympathise, believe me), but the fact is that the terms "anti-virus" and | "virus" applied to computers have become generalised in common usage. | Fact is that it happens in all professions. Professionals develop | special and precise terminology, their work impinges on the rest of us, | and we borrow their terms. And immediately fudge, fuzz, and often | thoroughly misunderstand the concepts. Most of the time, it makes no | practical difference. | FWIW, my teeth grate when I hear people use "substitute" for "replace", | or "reticent" for "hesitant", or - well, you get the idea. I hope. ;-) | Can I stop people form misusing these words. 'Course not. True, however one must not lose the opportunity to educate. If you don't, well you have given them reason to continue. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: David H. Lipman on 5 Aug 2010 19:23 From: "Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> | On 05/08/2010 17:44, David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "Ant"<not(a)home.today> >> | "FromTheRafters" wrote: >>>> If I send someone out for coke, I sure don't want them coming back with >>>> a pepsi. :oD >> | Especially when you're expecting the finest Bolivian marching powder! >> I tried Coke once but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. :-) | LOL Did 'ya hear about the blonde that snorted Sweet 'N Low ? -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 20:46
"John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:oaF6o.1247$1v3.814(a)newsfe20.iad... > On 8/4/2010 2:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: >> "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:G1j6o.53362$dx7.3611(a)newsfe21.iad... >> >> [...] >> >>> "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term. >>> Why do you think they call the software used to clean >>> trojans and worms, "Anti-Virus" software? >> >> Generally, they call it antimalware unless it is also effective >> against >> viruses and worms (which are self-replicators). If it is effective >> against viruses, they call it an antivirus. Antivirus programs can >> also >> detect some non-replicating malware. > > They call it that because it's quite common to refer to all > malware as viurses. Been this way for decades. Being wrong is quite common also. >>> I'm sure you don't think that they only clean viruses >>> and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a matter >>> of semantics. >> >> Of course it is, but semantics shouldn't be a dismissive word. The >> meanings of words are *important* to effective communications. >> > > It's all a matter of who you're talking to. If the person wants > to nitpick even though they know what a person means then what can you > do but explain. I don't usually bother to correct non-professionals, although I do mention that they are in error when they call non-replicators viruses. In your case, being a "professional" you should know better. That you refuse to accept the facts is just your personality getting in the way of your professionalism. > I've worked for people who are very computer savvy and people who are > new to computers. I use all the terms to describe the problem and > rarely hear anyone nitpick about using the word "virus" to describe a > trojan or worm. It's just acceptable. > >>> Just about all of the major anti-malware vendors have >>> products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because it just >>> stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this? >> >> We all know this, and we don't like it one bit. The fact remains that >> viruses are a special case requiring more than what many antimalware >> applications are equipped to handle. > > It seems to anger you on some level. Not really, it angers me when they call viruses malware - but that's another story that you would not be interested in. > I don't care in the least what they call it, as long as it does the > job. What job? If you use an antimalware application to remove viruses, you can be giving a still infested machine back to your customer. I know that you don't care, and it is alright with me if you insist on continuing to be wrong, but calling yourself a professional is over the top. I won't bother to help you to understand the importance of the difference anymore since you refuse to learn. |