PDA

View Full Version : Virex 7.5



Husq
27th August 2004, 07:05 PM
When apple released virex 7.5, tried installing it but won't work. I get the following error:
Virex 7.5 cannot be installed on this computer.
There is anti-virus software running that is not compatible with Virex. Please remove any other anti-virus programs previously installed.

However I have uninstalled virex 7.2 (even ran the uninstaller from the macafee site), uninstalled diskwarrior, and the norton suit of products.

I know most of you will argue that an antivirus program is useless on a mac. However has anyone else had problems installing this?

Currawong
28th August 2004, 03:15 PM
Quite likely, the Norton uninstaller didn't uninstall everything. There may still be kernel extentions for Nortons sitting there.

By the way, why are you installing anti-virus software in the first place? There are no virii for OSX, and PC ones are dead easy to detect by the attachments included with them.

elvis
29th August 2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Currawong@Aug 28 2004, 03:15 PM
There are no virii for OSX.
"Virii" is not a word. I think you are looking for "Viruses".

And correct, there are no viruses for MacOSX. Possibly if you were running a file server for Windows machines, or an FTP location uploaded to regularly by Windows users, then yes you'd want a virus scanner.

Otherwise if you are running just a Mac network, you don't need a virus scanner.

But sorry, I can't help any more with the initial problem. Perhaps try using the "locate" command in the terminal to track down existing files and manually nuke them by hand? That would be my first attempt at cleaning things up.

[EDIT] here's an artcile on MacFixIt talking about the same thing:

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20040827073422237

Currawong
29th August 2004, 10:40 AM
Virii is a perfectly valid plural for virus, though it's been relegated to uncommon due to the advent of the internet and "viruses".

Husq
29th August 2004, 10:58 AM
Finally able to google this one. Currawong you were correct - removing all traces of norton fixed the problem. Details at MacFixIt (http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=30545).

Considering I have a windows pc on my network, and relatives with windows pc's with no virus scanners that want me to fix up pictures and print documents, I figured the 1 odd MB of RAM it uses isn't that much of a problem.

BTW Virii is a perfectly valid unword (http://www.unwords.com/unword/virii.html)

p996911turbo
29th August 2004, 02:59 PM
Oh come on people; "viruses" is the commonly accepted English pluralisation but who likes English? And in Latin, "virii"? WTF? "Virii" would only be acceptable if the singular is spelt "virius". "Viri" is closer but still not right: it would have to be a masculine noun for that and it's not, it's neuter. I can't find any evidence that "virus" was ever even used as a plural in Latin. So in short, no one is right! :P Someone get a Latin scholar to look into it!

Danamania
29th August 2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by p996911turbo@Aug 29 2004, 02:59 PM
Oh come on people; "viruses" is the commonly accepted English pluralisation but who likes English? And in Latin, "virii"? WTF? "Virii" would only be acceptable if the singular is spelt "virius". "Viri" is closer but still not right: it would have to be a masculine noun for that and it's not, it's neuter. I can't find any evidence that "virus" was ever even used as a plural in Latin.

Aye, it's a pretty new lighthearted form. Like Hippopotami and Octopi (words derived from greek, but given latin extensions for the fun of it while speaking english :).


Someone get a Latin scholar to look into it!

http://www.therfcc.org/virus-biology--3287.html has the correct usage for biology, and for a deeper look into it: http://www.ofb.net/~jlm/virus.html

A peek into google groups shows the first use of "virii" in a biological discussion in 1985 in a lighthearted sense, then the next use is 3 years later in an Amiga newsgroup with a bunch of Amiga kiddies all throwing the word around. From then on it bloomed.

Peeking for "viruses" shows the first use in newsgroups to be September 1981, not long after google groups' oldest recorded postings.

Looks like we can thank amiga kiddies for the online proliferation of the word "virii"!. Regardless of it not being the normal usage for more than one virus, it's in the language now. A bit like "boxen" as a plural for "box" in the sense of a computer. I think that may have derived from a more specific vax/vaxen play on plurals, but that's for another day... (I'd say for a rainy day, but it's raining now)

dana

Crambo
29th August 2004, 06:35 PM
Ah I just skipped right to the bottom, that would be ‘viri’, not ‘virii’, as the ‘us’ is changed to ‘I’ in plural form. For example ‘radius’ becomes ‘radii’ only because an ‘I’ exists before the ‘us’ in the base word. If someone has shown that ‘virus’ has no roots in Latin, then a Latin plural form isn't really appropriate, as it's not appropriate to add Greek suffixes and so forth to say... Germanic words in the English language.

This is interesting, after a quick search I found the following. I am unsure of its credibility, though.


Anyway, Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man), which as it turns out is also a 2nd declension noun. I do not believe that writers of English who write viri are intentionally speaking of men. And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular[1], not the nominative plural. And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative. Such hanky panky would certainly get you talked about, and probably your hand slapped as well.

More may be found here. (http://uk.geocities.com/zetete/viruses.html)

elvis
29th August 2004, 07:46 PM
I think I've seen/read/participated in this argument roughly 3278642376 times just this year.

"Virii" is not a word. Get over it.

p996911turbo
29th August 2004, 08:34 PM
Thanks dana and Crambo for proving me right!