Slashdot Mirror

A site that sells antivirus software claiming there are a lot of dangerous viruses? But wait, there's more! Your PC is infected! Click here for your free virus scan! Act before it's too late! ;)

A good read of computer history on Wikipedia if anyone is interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

Conventionally, clock rates, bitrates, bandwidths, and other networking and data rates are understood to use decimal prefixes (i.e., 1 kb/s = 1000 b/s), RAM is understood to use binary prefixes (i.e., 1 MB/MiB = 1024 kB/KB/KiB), and storage devices use both in different places (the OS or the packaging).

Random sources that back this up:
http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=115
http://www.pcguide.com/intro/fun/bindec-c.html
http://www.cknow.com/refs/BitsBytesandMultipleBytes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#Prefixes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#Usage_notes

that the computer viruses of today will lead to spur computers to life?

That is a likely assumption. In an attempt to fight virii more efficiently the idea of writing computer "anti-bodies" or good virii. It is not much of a leap from a virus that helps to a fully functional network "immune system" that actively probes the network for bad virii and deals with them accordingly and automatically. Something like this could be considered "intelligent", but intelligence always depends on you definition of the word.

This was the file at center of the April 01 2001 daylight savings time snafu. See the links below:

http://www.langa.com/newsletters/1999/jan-18-99.ht m

Microsoft's Unintentional April's Fool's Bug

http://www.cknow.com/articles/62/1/Computer-Knowle dge-Newsletter-Archive---1999/print/62

http://www.rescomp.upenn.edu/docs/hype/old/aprilon e.html

At the risk of making this a purely off-topic thread, check out the plural for virus here.

For instance, let's say that Windows has 92%, Linux has 5%, and OS X has 3% (these numbers aren't right, but since nobody can say with any certainty what the exact percentages are, and these fall into the generally accepted current market share percentages, we'll go with these.

I'm not going to get real persnickety about the number of viruses out there either, I'll simply go with the number of active Windows viruses as being about 180 (I know, you hear numbers from 50,000 up all the time, but let's stick to those in active circulation).

If the number of Windows viruses is around 200 (I'm rounding up to make the math easier and account for the new viruses that sprang into being as I typed this), then there should be about 10 active Linux viruses and 6 active OS X viruses.

How many Linux viruses (active or otherwise) have you heard of? I don't follow Linux virus patches, so I haven't a clue, but I can't recall ever hearing of any Linux build, be it Redhat/Debian/SUSE/Mandrake/Slackware/Gentoo/etc, that has been crippled by a virus or worm infestation like Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2K, XP have been.

I do know that while there are a number of patches that are published to plug exploits that a hypothetical virus might use, I have yet to hear of any actual virus or worm penetrating any OS X system, or even the existence of an OS X virus/worm. I only had Virex installed for a short while, as the cure was worse than the nonexistent disease.

I tend to see antivirus packages as snake oil for the masses, since modern viruses can cover the globe in well under an hour, and it takes at least 8-12 hours for an antivirus provider to detect, identify, analyze, produce, test and distribute a new signature to block an infestation that has already occurred. I prefer to lock things down behind a couple of decent firewalls, leaving no unnecessary ports open, and apply patches to plug what few leaks there are, and try and be prudent about what I click on or download.

I do hope you don't think that IE, being a much more mature product, and having the backing of the richest software company on the planet behind it, is in any way/shape/form more secure that Firefox, or that Apache is more vulnerable than IIS.

Microsoft software has more viruses simply because Microsoft assesses the time spent designing a secure integrated system of software products, as wasted time that could be better spent selling defective products to Joe Clueless User -- After all, there's got to be something for the next release to fix, right?

2) Cracking the DRM code is not the same as cracking the key used to encrypt each item of encrypted content. If the key is not accessable then the content cannot be decrypted without major difficulty . If the virus/malware retains the decrypt key only in DRM OS protected resident memory, then the key is not accessable to the user. Also it is possible to construct polymorphic virus code which encrypts the decode key in the virus startup code.

In 1989 a company sent out a large number of floppy disks to various people in Europe, with an EULA that allowed them to encrypt your data if you ran their floppy. They then requested money from you to decrypt your data. See http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtsladepranks.htm for some more details. The US were next on the list to be targeted.

There is a common misperception that Apple's various releases of MacOS are more security than alternatives A, B and C, and that "you can't hack a Mac". That, of course, is pure bullshit. The evidence often sited to support that outlandish claim is the lack of viruses or "hacking" incidents involving MacOS personal computers. One of the, if not the most important, factors in the "popularity" of a virus or worm is the popularity of the host it is designed to effect. MacOS may comprise a mere 5% (which is probably lower than the proportion of Linux desktop users) of desktops today, however Apple's products dominated back in the day. They have since lost that dominance to a little upstart based in Redmond, Washington ;)

Anyways, I think a review of some malicious code history is in order.

As you can see from the history, the bit of code considered to be the first virus. Elk Cloner spread from machine to machine on floppy disks. Of course, Apple was the shiznit at that time, and kids could get access to them in school.

Fast forward to 1986, and we see the first viruses hitting MS-DOS, which was starting to become popular at that time. The first self-replicating bit of malware (aka worm) was identified in 1987, affecting IBM mainframes.

It wasn't until 1988 that the first virus-related crisis broke out, but that often overshadows the fact that 1988 also marked two new viruses for the Apple Macintosh, including the first major outbreak. The Mac was still a very popular desktop at this time, both for business and in the educational sector.

Over the next few years, Apple's popularity decreased while Microsoft got a stranglehold on the desktop computer market. PCs running Windows started to become affordable, moreso than Apple's products, and personal computers spread rapidly into homes. With this increase in popularity came an even more rapid pace in malicious code being seen out in the wild.

It doesn't take much brain power to see that viruses, worms, trojans, and other malware are written for the big targets. Vulnerability in the target certainly plays a role, and both Apple and Microsoft have had their share of attention. Microsoft gets a far bigger share, of course. Given that they comprise roughly 90% of desktop PCs, it should be no surprise that the kiddies who write viruses are both using and targeting Windows products. It also doesn't help that Microsoft is only starting to really get a clue about security.

However, this shift has resulted in the misperception that I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Is Apple a victim of the "you can't hack a Mac" delusion? There is some evidence that they are. A recent Security Focus article discusses a recent vulnerability in MacOS X - Apple patches critical Mac OS X hole:

The hole was discovered by a German techie called "Lixlpixel," who claims to have reported the bug to Apple on February 23rd. It wasn't until nearly three months passed without any response from the Cupertino, Calif. computer maker that Lixlpixel went public with the hole, when discussions about it began showing up in online forums, he says. Security services firm Secunia confirmed the vulnerability and released a formal advisory on Monday. Secunia rates the bug "extremely critical."

Apple's responses to the reports ranged from silence, initially, to smug assurances that customers are not at risk and that MacOS X's UNIX core is more secure than most. UNIX may have better inherent capabilities for security than Windows due to design, however a poor implementation of a UNIX-based system is equally (if not more) vulnerable than most systems ("most" being everything that isn't UNIX).

The big question is whether or not Apple has a good and secure implementation of UNIX at the heart of their product? Short answer: hell no. One of the pred

I forgot about Mosaic. But you just reiterated my point about Microsoft's methods. When Netscape adopted it from Mosaic, they still called it "Bookmarks". But when MS adopted it, they renamed it "Favourites".

I know there are differences, but from what I understood, Active X controls were revised versions of OLE controls for the Internet. Yet, Active X controls were also used in things like Access and Visual Basic. They integrated it very well across the board, and I can't find the equivalent on the Mac platform.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com [cknow.com], quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com [perl.com], the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer [tesco.net]
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise [m-w.com]," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer

"With the help of the new LZW time compression algorithm. Why else do you think companies outsource to Bangalore?"

Because they don't hate Unisys there yet? Or is it because they call 26 year old things new?

I have some new farting technology for sale, too. It stinks better than the farts you know, and it's patent pending!

virii is not a word, Mr. Anonymous troll.

Indeed at least two sites document the Apple viruses in 1981. In addition, they were discussed in theory as early as 1949, and appeared in science fiction as least by 1975 in John Brunner's great Shockwave Rider, which was the inspiration for Robert Morris' famous Internet worm.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

What does PHP stand for?

That's a recent re-invention... it originally stood for Personal Home Page.

these remain the no.1 tools of criminal "hackers" allowing them to propogate virii and pirate material and to violate the DMCA

Of course you mean viruses?

taken from http://www.cknow.com/ckinfo/acro_o/oled_1.shtml A display device consisting of a series of carbon-based thin films sandwiched between two electrodes; one transparent (often glass). OLED technology holds promise because of the ability to tailor the organic molecules to vary color saturation, sensitivity, and other optical properties.

A new OLED variant, phosphorescent OLED (or PHOLED) has been developed for portable phones. This variation is a low-power variant developed by Universal Display. ;)

To the average VB Developer, the words "Obfuscated C" is redundant.

Ok, since we're trolling...
To the average C software engineer, the acronym BASIC clarifies the VB Developer's skill level.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

Because if they did they'd now that an ACK character is used to acknowledge receipt of a transmission not to request acknowledgement.

Okay. That makes much more sense. I'm not sure it's really true for a lot of people, though:

• I've never had a speed problem with PostgreSQL. With a decent database structure, correct indexes, up-to-date statistics (run "vacuum analyze" nightly), and sane queries (read an "explain analyze" every now and then), it's always been orders of magnitude faster than I really need. I think what I do is as intensive as what most people do with MySQL. I wonder if people feel like they are pushing the performance envelope because they are doing weird queries because proper ones are not possible with MySQL's limited query options. Or if they just see that MySQL is fast enough and assume PostgreSQL would not be without really trying it.

  At work, I sometimes deal with lots of data (Oracle). There I'm glad for performance features like index-organized tables and materialized views that neither MySQL nor PostgreSQL have. So there is progress to be made; I just don't think it's relevant for many applications.

• You can make the same compromise within PostgreSQL. Really, any speed comparison of the two should do so to be on the same ground. (Or better, test PostgreSQL both ways and note why most people consider losing the speed to be worthwhile.) You just say "fsync = false" in postgresql.conf and it will no longer do the D of ACID for the benefit of faster commits.
• The performance comparisons I've seen that showed MySQL in the lead used very simplistic queries. PostgreSQL has a query planner that I think would cause things to be quite different with more realistic ones.

Unknown? It's a Bayonet Neill Concelman, British Naval Connector, or Bayonet Nut Connector. Check out this for details.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

>Better hope that one of those 3000 odd downloads wasn't someone grabbing it to stick on their magazines coverdisk...

Speaking of magazines and viruses, I think you'll find it interesting that the first virus ever widely spread on Macs happened to be a veiled advertisement for a computer magazine itself, proving the truth is, in fact, stranger than fiction.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly..
--

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly...

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There is no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking foolish...

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly...