Can you please put your conversation about Anti-Viruses and Contraceptive Pills on another forum or at least another thread?
On 08/07/2013 12:07 AM, Andrew Brown wrote: > Well said > > Andrew Brown > > On 06/08/2013 09:10 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >> Hi :) >> I've not had any problems with AVG so far. Afaik! >> >> But i definitely think anti-malware stuff is definitely one of those >> things that people have to make up their own minds about which is best >> for them. After-all if it works really well then you never know it's >> doing anything. if it does log lots of things happening then is that >> stuff that it's making up or would the attacks have happened anyway. >> >> It's a bit like the fella in Peckham sprinkling anti-elephant powder >> on his doorstep each morning. It 'obviously' works because there are >> no elephants in Peckham. >> >> Even better is the example from House MD where a lady said that her >> monthles had stopped but that was one of the possible side effects of >> her birth-control pills working. House pointed out it was also a >> possible side-effect of her pills NOT working. >> >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andrew Brown <andre...@icon.co.za> >> *To:* Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> >> *Cc:* Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmas...@krackedpress.com>; >> users@global.libreoffice.org >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 19:05 >> *Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed >> >> Hi Tom >> >> You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware >> malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS >> firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated >> fully with >> MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS >> I am >> sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not >> necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and >> dishonest >> malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and >> fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and >> MSSE is >> now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are >> not strong with active protection and scanning of your system, >> plugged >> in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel. >> >> In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as >> it's not bad and totally opensource. >> >> Freeware >> 1. MSSE >> 2. Avast >> 3. ClamAV for Windows >> >> For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal, >> business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war >> >> Kaspersky >> ESET Nod32 >> >> Regards >> >> Andrew Brown >> >> On 06/08/2013 04:30 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >> > Hi :) >> > Good point. I only had the anti-malware stuff running. None of >> the usual other windows open. >> > >> > On Windows machines i typically have 2 running. >> > 1. Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces >> it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even >> if you don't want it >> > 2. A free one. Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work. >> In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG >> seems reasonably ok to me. >> > >> > On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch >> off one or the other. Usually the MS one because i still don't >> completely trust it yet. >> > >> > The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out >> the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it >> without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think >> in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be >> around. I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that. >> I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different >> structures. On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where >> all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure >> their one to deal with likely threats. So, who knows which is >> going to be best in the next years or so. >> > >> > Regards from >> > Tom :) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmas...@krackedpress.com >> <mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com>> >> >> To: users@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:users@global.libreoffice.org> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 14:56 >> >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually my 3 second test, as stated in a past post, was with 3 >> >> utilities open on the screen and 2 or 3 Firefox browser windows >> open. >> >> The utilities are always loaded at boot by my choice. I have >> several FF >> >> windows open with many tabs involved. That is part of my "normal" >> >> desktop use so I do not have to keep opening those pages every >> day or >> >> so, and sometimes 3 or 6 times a day. >> >> >> >> So with all that background packages, 3 seconds is not bad at >> all for a >> >> Ubuntu 12.04LTS system. >> >> >> >> Now on my Win7 laptops, well that is a different story, or similar >> >> maybe. I have a "ton" of security packages loaded up at boot >> time. >> >> Also there are some utilities and other options loaded, like >> printer >> >> management and other "stuff" like that. So there is much more >> packages >> >> running in the background with the Win7 laptops - both dual >> core but >> >> different power - so click to splash to ready for work will take >> >> longer. To be honest, I am one of those people that believes that >> >> Windows is a OS that can be easily infected with "nasties" so >> you must >> >> have a lot of security utilities running to keep that from >> happening. I >> >> know some fools that do not even run anti-virus packages. They >> say "why >> >> bother", "I am safe", "I never go to sites that will infect >> me", or my >> >> favorite "It will never happen to me. You are just paranoid". >> >> >> >> So, the key is that fact that LO is faster loading to a usable >> state, >> >> now, than it was last year. Also, it is not the speed to the >> splash >> >> screen, but the speed of how long it will take till you are >> able to use >> >> the package. >> >> >> >> So if you run all of the security package, like I do, on >> Windows it >> >> will take longer to load up completely than with less >> security. The >> >> same with Linux and how much is running in the background. The >> same >> >> system, down to the exact same CPU, RAM, drive, OS, etc., will >> take >> >> different times depending on what is installed and running. >> Even a >> >> fragmented drive will reduce the load and usage speeds. >> >> >> >> So let us just say LO is loading faster than before and if a >> person >> >> cannot wait for a few seconds for load time, then they will not >> be happy >> >> with most packages out there that does similar "work". Tablets >> can be >> >> worse load times for their packages and I know of no one >> locally who has >> >> complained about that. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 07:06 AM, Andrew Brown wrote: >> >>> Ha! Ha! there you go, LO just runs on whatever platform and >> O/S of >> >>> your choice. And for the most part, what is a minute or less >> really >> >>> from switch on to productive use of something. I can't make a >> cup of >> >>> tea in that time, and I mean a real brewed cup of tea. Now at >> least >> >>> the movies can show an actor sitting down in front of a PC and >> almost >> >>> instantly start to work on it, I used to laugh at this in the >> past :-P >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> >> >>> Andrew >> >>> >> >>> On 06/08/2013 04:12 AM, Virgil Arrington wrote: >> >>>> On 08/05/2013 05:03 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >> >>>>> Hi :) >> >>>>> That is weird. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On this fairly crumby laptop, 2.2GHz (hmmm, not so crumby >> after all) >> >>>>> it took about 0-1 seconds for the LO splash-screen to >> appear. Same >> >>>>> on my really nice desktop, 1.86GHz (hmmm, not so nice after >> all!). >> >>>>> Both running Ubuntu and fairly old versions of LO (i think). >> >>>>> Meanwhile on Windows 2.93GHz it took about 1s to open Writer >> >>>>> completely. Didn't even have time to see the splash screen. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> I have a Sony Vaio laptop. I'm running a dual boot Windows 7 and >> >>>> Linux Mint 15 (running in the Windows WUBI installer). I just >> started >> >>>> using LO 4 on the Linux Mint side and immediately noticed how >> much >> >>>> faster it runs on Mint rather than Win7. I'm sure there are a >> lot of >> >>>> variables, and I haven't tested them all, but so far, I'm really >> >>>> pleased with the performance of LO on Mint. >> >>>> >> >>>> Virgil >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail to: >> users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org> >> >> Problems? >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> >> Posting guidelines + more: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >> >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and >> cannot be deleted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: >> users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org> >> Problems? >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> Posting guidelines + more: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and >> cannot be deleted >> >> > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
