We get far more letters and blog pingbacks than we have room for in print. So here are the ones from which we chose this week's printed letters. Click through to read in full..
VIRUS FREE I am absolutely staggered by the statement that a) you don't have any viruses and b) you don't have any virus scanning software, surely logic would dictate that you can't know that you do not have any viruses for sure without having a tool to tell you this much. Yes, firewalls are a good way to prevent viruses being pushed at your computer across the Internet but they don't stop actions which are driven by the user, i.e. accidentally visiting malicious web sites which perform drive-by installations due to programming flaws in web browsers, opening pictures of the European storm surges which come through the firewall as part of your email s/w. Viruses these days do not drag down performance of PCs as they are now the tool of choice for professional criminals. And those criminals do not want you to know your PC is being used. I truly hope you do not have any rootkits or keyloggers pumping out information over port 80 (HTTP), securing your identity for someone else to use. I have been responsible for my company's anti-virus protection for the last 7 years, and when I say anti-virus protection, I'm not just referring to scanning, we have firewalls, we have IDS which also runs alongside the scanning and still the users manage to get infected, but at least I know about it because our scanning software reports this. The only true way of protecting any Internet connected PC is a multi-tiered multi-vendor approach, firewall, intrusion detection and scanning and even then you may not be safe. Don't forget about the iPods which were delivered with their very own Windows computer virus, does your firewall block the USB connections or is it just IP based? I hope none of the nefarious people on the Internet read your article because you have just set them a challenge. I think you ought to update your article and attend some I.T. security seminars. Simon Woodward, Manager - Global Client Technologies, CNH I.S. Services Management, Basildon
I agree with Andrew Brown's article where he discusses how the anti-virus industry scares people to buy over-priced, subscription paid antivirus software. However, it is ridiculous to state that firewalls and windows security updates are sufficient to protect a PC. Numerous flaws are found in Microsoft products on a monthly basis and there are whole armies of hackers, script-kiddies what ever you want to call them out there trying to exploit our PCs and turn them in zombie PCs, steal our info or do whatever they like. It often takes Microsoft weeks to come up with a patch to fix the holes in their software. Infections don't always come through emails or floppies. The cat and mouse game of virus distribution is highly dynamic, with Microsoft constantly fire-fighting, not preventing these flaws by producing a decent product in the first place. There are web pages out there that people choose to go to (therefore bypassing the firewall) that will infect your PC. I recently went to the web-page of a reputable British shop that had been hacked and my PC was infected with a virus. I know this as my antivirus warned me. Had I not have an antivirus program on my PC, then I would still be infected. Indeed, infections may be key-stroke loggers and other software that choose to remain hidden on the breached computer, passing on personal information such as 16 digit numbers, passwords, etc. How does he know that he is virus free? Not all viruses are going to pop up and make a sound telling you your system has been breached. Similar to how STDs in the UK are on an exponential rise because of (a) societies increasingly sexually liberal attitudes and (b) no-one thinks that they're harbouring any STD, Andy's liberal attitudes, if followed by any of the Guardian's normally well-informed readers, would leave people prone to infection. And by the way, free software is a classic way to get an infection. If in doubt, it is recommendable to scan anything you download. Any person who knows anything about IT will know that there are a whole host of free and credible anti-virus products out there, with one of the most popular being AVG, by Grisoft. There are daily updates and I've and many of my friends and colleagues who also use it, have never had a problem with it. Obviously, nothing is infallible, but the more layers of defence you have, the better protected you are. I can't believe I'm writing in to have to explain what anyone who knows half a thing about IT can tell you. I hope that not all the Guardian-reading technophobes who rely on this normally top-notch web-site are going to leave their PCs open to attack. I do have better things to do than whinge about such issues but Andrew's "advice" was exceptionally poor. Perhaps the article was written to produce this type of angry response? If not, are all your correspondents similarly ignorant, e.g. does your motoring correspondent have a driving license? Check out AVG, its one of the best free anti-virus programs out there. Get a decent malware cleaner (e.g. Spybot) and use a firewall. And beware of any pop-up that tells you that you are infected and to download their "bona fide" virus cleaner. However, sometimes by that point it may already be too late. Kindest regards from an inflamed reader who works in IT having to sort out the very problems created by misinformed "ID:10T"s like Andrew. Anton Humphrey (no post town given)
I agree completely with Andrew Brown's criticisms of anti-virus software. I purchased my current machine just over a year ago and downloaded McAfee's virus checker as protection. However, when the free version expired and I decided to pay for it I found I wasn't receiving updates. I ended up getting locked into a cycle of not being able to download updates because the system claimed I hadn't subscribed when I had, and not being able to sort out the problem because something somewhere else had registered my subscription and thought everything was working normally. Using their online tech support service also rapidly proved fruitless and with no local telephone support line on offer I soon gave up and wrote off the money. If I'd read Andrew's article then I wouldn't have been scared into thinking that I needed the additional software. My machine sits behind three firewalls - the Windows XP software firewall (pretty useless but not as annoying as initial reports claimed); the surprisingly good hardware firewall on my Nvidia graphics card; and a Mac firewall on a shared wireless router. I also use a couple of common free anti-spyware and anti-adware programs, online e-mail accounts in place of Outlook, and Firefox instead of Internet Exploder. So far my machine has yet to contract anything - although writing this e-mail is probably the kiss of death to that. Whilst it's probably dangerous to suggest everyone else does the same, if people are aware of what their PCs are downloading at any one time firewalls are a much easier, and in my experience cheaper but equally effective, means of virus protection. Keith Baker, Leicester
Andrew brown in his article in the Technology Guardian 8th Feb says "It is common sense not to use Internet Explorer or Outlook Express except when you absolutely have to"; since these are probably two of the most used Windows programs, did he mean to say it? and if so can he suggest alternatives? Grateful for any response. Michael Stanhope (no post town given) [Thunderbird for email, Firefox for browsing - Tech Ed; see mozilla.org]
I don't buy any anti-virus software either, but in my case it's because I use Linux. I'm not a computer science geek, I'm not going to rave about Bill Gate's evil empire, spell it Micro$oft or make disparaging remarks about Windoze, I just stumbled across Linux a few years ago, tried it and liked it. It takes a little getting used to but then so did Windows at first. Most Linux distributions give you an operating system and a fantastic range of free software. Phil Thane, Llangollen
I would like to add just one point to Andrew Brown's article, which is that journalists, as well as ordinary computer users, too often fall for antivirus companies' scare stories. I've lost count of the number of times I've read in newspapers about a Dangerous New Trend or Worrying Change Of Tactic by virus writers. Invariably, the story is based on a "survey" published by a company selling AV software, and the journalist fails to point out the obvious vested interest. BTW, may I be the first smug ******* to point out that my PC has never been infected, because it runs a proper OS/Distro: Ubuntu/Linux. Alex Zeffertt (no post town given)
QUANTUM COMPUTING I read with dismay your article regarding D-Wave's "breakthrough". There are a number of egregious errors in your article, including your statement that "Orion solves a theoretical magnetic field problem, called the two-dimensional Ising model, which would take exponential amounts of time on a normal computer". Unfortunately adiabatic quantum computation does not provide a way of solving this problem any faster (see "How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation" by van Dam, Mosca and Vazirani, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 2001, and "Limits on Quantum Adiabatic Optimization", van Dam and Vazirani, QIP 2003). Indeed, on its web site, D-Wave claimed a quadratic speedup, not an exponential one. However, even this modest speedup appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of our 2001 paper above, where we showed such a quadratic speedup for unstructured search. For technical reasons (that I would be happy to go into if you are interested) the same speedup does not apply to finding the ground state of the two-dimensional Ising system. Another issue was your equating "designed to collapse" as synonymous with an "adiabatic" process. You confuse the fact that the quantum state evolves towards the answer (the ground state of the final hamiltonian) with collapse. This is completely incorrect. And indeed Geordie Rose's claim that noise helps this process (as cited by you in the following statement) has no basis in fact. All in all, I am afraid that by and large, your article uncritically echoes the PR put out by D-Wave, and despite the occasional note of scepticism it creates a largely misleading picture of their accomplishments. Umesh Vazirani, Berkeley Quantum Computing Center, California
I am intrigued to know how the demonstration is going to work, if, as Peter Judge writes, 'they literally stop working if you look at them.' In this respect they differ crucially from better understood 'classical' humans who stop working if you don't look at them. Philip Diamond, Institute of Physics, London
CONSOLE BUNDLES Contrary to what's suggested in the article, I contended the bundling of new consoles with a minimum number of titles is beneficial to gamers. The larger capital investment required by including the cost of extra controllers and at least a couple of games (things keen gamers are going to purchase anyway) discourages the purchasing of consoles by the those looking to make a fast buck on eBay and at the same time also discourages posers who are after consoles as a fashion accessory or for bragging rights, rather than because they'd actually like to buy and play games on it. Ultimately, increasing the barrier to entry in this way increases the chance of a new console actually going to someone who want's to use it to it's fullest - which, given the shortage of consoles typically available at launches, is something I welcome. Contrary to what's suggested, and what might reasonably be assumed without looking into it, rather than being bundled with "the detritus of the launch line-up" most retailers who do bundles typically have deals that allow you to choose from a range of titles, not just the turkeys (though of course launch line ups are usually slim pickings in any case). Iain Collins
NHS COMPUTERISATION Why does it take so long? Companies like Amazon, ebay or any other on- line trader can set up and be in business within a few months. Security on the internet is good if using the right technologies. And what about my personal access to my records? For example here in Greece? Looks to me like an expensive shambles. The approach seems to be let's put the paper work into a computer. This is not the right way to go. Computers offer much better ways of doing things. Of course you need to get everybody, including me, on side to do this. But any decent ad-agency could do that Antony Watts
FREE OUR DATA, MINISTER >> Ultimately, I think that this boils down to the government focussing on the T at the expense of the I in IT. It's concerned about shiny new identity cards, biometrics, scanners etc etc rather than why they exist in the first place: to make effective use of information. http://fishnchippapers.typepad.com/tomorrow_fish_n_chip_pape/2007/02/missing_the_woo.html
SCO VS LINUX: ENDGAME? You state "Novell then sold the remaining rights and the rest of its Unix business to SCO." That's certainly what SCO would like you to think - Novell disagrees and points out that 100% of the UNIX royalties are remitted to it with 5% then being handed back to SCO. Novell is clear that SCO is a UNIX distributor with some small rights and that Novell remains the owner of UNIX; the facts appear to be on its side. Alan Milnes, Glenrothes
Your article on the presumed impending demise of The SCO Group contained one small factual error: It was Unix System Laboratories (USL), the division of AT&T that handled Unix prior to the sale of that part of AT&T's business to Novell, which started the lawsuit against BSDI (a company involved in commercial support and distribution of BSD) and the University of California at Berkeley (the originators of BSD). Novell only inherited the suit when they bought USL, and it appears they were pretty eager to get rid of it. Ray Noorda, CEO of Novell at the time, publicly stated that his company "would rather compete in the marketplace than in court." Jeff Rollin (no post town given)
The one error noted is phrase ..."Novell bought the rights to "Unix" from AT&T, and sued BSD". One cannot sue a software application. The suit was against the University of California at Berkeley and its Regents, who created the BSD UNIX-like operating system. Keep reporting on these "important" technology issues that effect many aspects of our lives. Wendell Anderson, Hamburg, New Jersey
Wasn't it AT&T (instead of Novell) that sued BSD in the eighties? Stephan van den Akker, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
I'd like to congratulate Wendy M Grossman on her Thursday February 8, 2007 article, "A Dickens of a copyright case at last approaches its endgame". One minor nitpick, though. In the eighth paragraph she wrote, "Then the networking company Novell bought the rights to 'Unix' from AT&T, and sued BSD." This is incorrect. Instead, the complaint in Unix System Laboratories, Inc. (USL) v. Berkeley Systems Design, Inc. (BSDi) (Civil Action No. 92-1667 (DRD)), filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, is dated April 20, 1992. See a copy of this complaint at: http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/USL/920420.complaint or at: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/920420.complaint.txt It wasn't until eight months later, on December 20, 1992, that AT&T and Novell signed a letter of intent for Novell's purchase of AT&T's UNIX System Labs, and it wasn't until February 16, 1993 that the two companies announced they had signed a definitive purchase agreement. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20051215194047/www.att.com/news/0293/930216.ula.html Novell's purchase wasn't complete until June 14, 1993. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20050209110146/www.att.com/news/0693/930614.ulb.html Thus, Novell did not initiate the lawsuit against BSDi, as Ms. Grossman's article incorrectly claims. Other than that, though, and maybe one or two other little teensy details, it's a good article. Again, congratulations. A history this complicated isn't easy, and overall, Ms. Grossman's article seems more or less roughly accurate. Ned Ulbricht (no post town given)
MYSPACE COMPETITION Myspace has a real competitor on the social networking battleground: Facebook. It has come from behind to constitute a serious challenge to Myspace using the simple logic of having a simple system that works. The same can't be said of Myspace: it is woefully prone to page load failures, users getting accounts hacked by spambots, and users overloading their pages with content. Facebook however benefits from tighter, cleverer design, and appears to be enjoying the same boom in users that Myspace was enjoying at the peak of it's notoriety. To use two crude performance measures: in the next couple of weeks the number of 'friends' I have on Facebook should overtake the equivalent amount on Myspace, despite the latter having a nine month head start, and far more time is spent (or should I say wasted?) on Facebook. Mark Muldoon, Manchester
I'm starting to get slightly depressed by the entire 'MySpace' thing. Yes, I'll admit to owning one and I have a huge amount of friends but I often ask myself - Why!? If somebody said to us 10 years ago that in a decade's time we'd all have a huge network of online friends and we'd be desperately aiming to gain their approval at every opportunity, I think we'd all have been a little depressed. I hope to delete my account one day (I have deleted it numerous times in the past, but it's such a great way to communicate for free), but I do also think it's a fad and today my generation are all hooked on MySpace, tomorrow the next generation will be hooked on a completely different weird fad. However, in my opinion the best thing about MySpace is the fact that any band/singer/author/film-maker etc. can simply set up a MySpace and with the ability to upload multimedia they can get their work out to a simply massive audience! Some of the biggest bands of 2006 were made through MySpace. Thom Holliday, Plymouth
Victor Keegan raises an interesting point (Will MySpace ever lose its monopoly? February 8) that although we are a very sharing culture when it comes to online communities, as soon as money is involved we can become very protective of what is ours and aware of what rights we have. How many users of the 'free' services such as MySpace, YouTube and Bebo, actually read the terms and conditions of use? Many of these sites state that even though you retain all of your ownership rights, the site retains the right to create offshoots of your work, as do other users. The site owns the copyright of any material submitted and you grant them that license as soon as you hit submit. Commercialisation is already ruining the idea that sharing can be fun and free. As online community rules and laws are still a grey area, it makes sense that to protect and retain full copyright of your material you should host it yourself. This way you can network on any social community site you wish and direct others to your own site, whilst maintaining control over what happens to your content. If anyone should make money from your content, why shouldn't it be you? Mark Beyer, Director, 123-reg
TECHNOBILE (M6) This column is usually worth a wry smile on a Thursday morning but today's is just pathetic (and not in a good way). Maybe this particular barrel has been scraped down to the wood now? Ian Tunnacliffe, Burnham
FLICKR VS YAHOO I left Flickr the day it was bought by Yahoo…. Eric Vivas, Luxembourg
PHOTOGRAPHIC INVOICES (CONT'D) I, in line with many other photographic professionals have been surprised at some of the responses that GNL (Technology Guardian) has received from readers in response to this (well researched) article. The big agencies have not been targeting only small businesses in recouping their losses from theft as has been suggested. As theft of this kind is indefensible they have indeed acted with zero tolerance; bigger companies with their own legal advisers generally put their hands up and settle as quickly as they can. As for professional web developers who do not know the value of good photography, and through ignorance or bullishness 'steal' images, what can one say? In this world, and in especially in professional photography, you generally get what you pay for. True professional photographers work for their clients, and want them to be happy. If one doesn't like Corbis rates, and don't want your image used by thousands of others (micro sites) then talk to an editorial professional. There are plenty of us around (look on the Internet), and I can guarantee that you can get a fair deal for all (client and photographer), or as was suggested by Pixalo.com in the letters for 8 February. I got my digital camera in the first place so that I could take pictures myself and not have to worry about licensing fees. As has been famously quoted before, 'If you think a professional photographer is expensive, you should try using an amateur'. I could design my own web site, but I don't because a professional will do it better. That is why people use professional photographers. It is unprofessional to steal. New York has zero tolerance for crime, supermarkets always prosecute; professional photographers deserve no less respect. Pete Jenkins, Vice Chair, Photographers Sub Committee, National Union of Journalists, Nottingham
Your article on image copyright highlighted the cost of traditional stock photography, yet failed to mention the new-yet-growing-rapidly segment of companies who sell stock photos online for amounts as low as US$1, such as www.istock.com. I have used them for numerous web sites, and have submitted video (which sells for $20). Great company to work with. James Smith
CAPPED BROADBAND Man alive, your article, 'Re: What does 'unlimited' mean?' has solved a puzzle for me. I live in Swansea, use NTL for broadband, and pay for a 4Meg connection. Last week I noticed my download speed drop by around half. It was working perfectly one day then the next it was complete rubbish. The day before I had downloaded several Linux LiveCD distribution ISO files to burn to CDR. Big downloads like this are a rare occurrence for me, so I really don't download a great deal at all. Now the annoying part is that I realised this was happening only through NTL's transparent cache as I tried other NTL proxies and full speed was restored. But without forcing a proxy my downloads were halved. So I phoned NTL to report a fault on their side, and after three quarters of an hour, at MY expense (10p per minute), the 'level 2 technician' tried telling me that my PC was the problem. I told the tech that I didn't have a problem, as I could connect okay, and the problem was there's, but he insisted I dismantle my setup (remove router) and restore DHCP under Windows, and then he told me my ethernet card was broken. After I almost an hour I suspect, and checking through varies proxies, he finally decided that it was something to do with the transparent cache but it wasn't a fault, and he couldn't do anything for me. "Use a proxy for 2 weeks, and phone back in two weeks if you still have the problem". He told me that I wouldn't be contacted about it. Not once did he mention this shaping/capping business, and for my troubles I end up paying NTL £5 in support calls. Your article has been most illuminating. I feel I have been deceived by NTL, and to add insult to injury, they not only cut my connection speed but unnecessarily cost me around £5 in support calls...I already pay £300 a year for the connection. Perhaps it's time to look elsewhere. Simon Blake, Swansea
I'm writing in response to the letter from Dave Eyre on Thursday 8th February and wanted to respond on behalf of PlusNet. Dave is correct - we don't accept inbound email for customer support. Instead, we provide a secure messaging system at our website. You log-in before sending a message which helps you to track responses and it is more accountable. We were one of the first companies to use this system 7 years ago at our website and most banks now use a similar system. We provide a 0845 lo-call number for times when you can't access our website. Average wait time at the moment is just 4 minutes and 8 seconds. Dave may have called last year when waiting times were longer than our usual high standards, but I'm confident he will notice a great improvement next time he needs to contact us. Phil Sheard, Emarketing manager, PlusNet, Sheffield
Richard Gregory (8.2.2007), like most ISPs unfortunately, fails to distinguish between unlimited and uncapped. Assuming a 1Mbps connection, then the theoretical maximum throughput per day is (24 x 60 x 60 = 86.4Gb =) 10.8GB, so that any ISP which doesn't enforce a throughput limit of less than 10.8GB per Mbps per day (or an equivalent for different time periods/speeds) is offering an uncapped service. It would be better if they said so and didn't excite the naïve 'laptop-toting person on the Clapham omnibus'. As to fair use policy, the concept is simple: download hogs shouldn't have an adverse affect on the normal activity of the overwhelming majority of an ISP's residential customer base. If their hogging is not having an adverse affect on others then they won't suffer any short-term throttle, so scheduling the pirate DVD downloads for the early hours of the morning or some other non-peak time gets round the problem. As the majority of capped users cope well enough with a monthly limit of 2GB - 40GB then one wonders why someone with a 4Mbps service would need a daily throughput of more than everyone else's monthly limit. The alternative is to allow a free-for-all and suffer the bleatings of the download hogs who are being out-hogged by other download hogs. And, while many of us would have little sympathy for the ping freak gamers, the prospect of Granny having to go to bed before the photo of the grandchildren downloads or of little Johnny not being able to do his homework may evoke more pity. John Haggerty, Wirral
I have now been without my broadband connection since the sixteenth of November... Yes, you read that right. From reading the tech sec in the Guardian, I think my story is probably not as rare as I would like to think. My connection went down while I was sitting at the PC. Oh well, It happens, I'll just hit Re-connect. Nope, no dial tone....... I have been on the phone to Orange almost every day since that time (at 3.75ppmin) and still am no further forward. Tech supp. are only trained to do the most rudimentary of line checks. When faced with an unexpected result they are snookered... Various other teams are on hand though, there's the Special Provisioning Team (no help), the Escalations Team (no help) and the highest of the high, the Customer Action Team (sadly, inevitably, no help). Oh, and you can't actually speak to any of them as "It's against company policy"... I don't think I've ever spoken to anyone who was the slightest bit interested in helping me, mainly because it may have required some effort. Customer Services isn't really customer services, it's billing enquiries only there, I'm afraid.... No email address on the website either..... This is a communications company...... I have been promised about fifty callbacks to discuss progress and actually got one... (I nearly fell over when i realised it was them. I still think of that day fondly). I was ensured by dozens of tech support bods that they would "personally take charge of my problem and sort it out within 24 hours".........um, no. I have been promised a modem in the post "just in case" about a dozen times. Number of new modems actually received...... zero. Several operators told me that the problem was at the BT exchange (probably) and that they would get on to the BT engineers. This, I was assured, would be done within five working days. I have never managed to verify this with any of the teams concerned (see above). I am unable to contact BT either because I'm not their customer. I am stunned by the incompetence and uncooperative nature of all but a few of the staff that I have spoken to these last few months. Yesterday a young lady promised me that her colleague from the Escalations Team would call me back. When I laughed and said that I didn't believe her, she became very abrupt. When I asked who her boss was, I was told "He's not part of this conversation so I cant give you his name". I replied that I didn't want his name, necessarily, but would like to speak to him. This is............ you guessed it.......... against company policy. Oh, and her colleague didn't ring me back either! All in all then a complete nightmare from start to finish. Customer Services have promised to refund against down time, but I can't get a straight answer about refunding for phone calls or for the time spent on (Chinese water torture) dial up. I am (you may have guessed) at the end of my tether. Is there anything, anything you guys know about that could help me? Sorry to rattle on. Paul O'Neill, Bideford
