User Tools

Site Tools


bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu [2015/02/17 22:45]
bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu created
bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu [2015/02/18 11:40] (current)
bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu
Line 1: Line 1:
 Firefox: to replace Internet Explorer and Google Chrome Firefox: to replace Internet Explorer and Google Chrome
- For some unbeknownst reason to even myself, I personally use both Internet Explorer and Google Chrome on my laptop. I have often used Firefox on public computers and as an incredibly uneducated software user, I honestly cannot notice a huge distinction between each of the software for the purposes I use them for. According to the Firefox website, this free software has features mostly geared toward privacy protection. Each program claims to feature Do Not Track, which allows users to express their inclination not to be tracked by websites, for example, preventing behavioral advertisement;​ ads geared toward users based on browsing history. Firefox also claims to have private browsing and forget button features, which also protect and remove browsing history from the knowledge of most outside parties. Not surprisingly,​ these features do not apply to Internet service providers, employers, or websites visited; in other words, users cannot remain completely anonymous on the Internet, a virtually impossible task no matter what software is used. Based on my experience and little knowledge of the programs I use, I would venture to guess these features are not entirely true for Chrome or Internet Explorer. One feature I find particularly appealing about Firefox is the secure connection feature, which (as implied) checks if web connections are indeed secure, protecting against phishing and malware. As already established,​ I am quite uneducated in the ‘anything tech-related’ world; as I understand it, anti-phishing is a form of identity theft protection that could occur by a user submitting personal information into a seemingly legitimate website, and malware can also be used to gain access to personal information,​ or spread computer ‘infections.’ I find this feature particularly appealing, as well as the automatic security updates. I am not even entirely sure if and when the current browsing software programs I use update their security features, so knowing it is automatic for Firefox would give me some peace of mind. Less serious issues of software include the opportunity for Firefox to be personalized with what features are kept based on use and disuse. As far as I know, this option is not even a reality for the propriety software I currently use. Based on this, I would say Firefox would fulfill my needs, and would hopefully protect my privacy more than Chrome and Internet Explorer. One interesting thing to note though, according to the GNU Operating System website, Firefox is not entirely ethical and even offers its own version of the Mozilla browser called GNU IceCat. While GNU does acknowledge that the source code for Firefox is free, the logo is trademarked and distributed plug-ins and addons are not considered free software. So, while one website suggests Firefox as a replacement for the mainstream proprietary software Chrome and Internet explorer, GNU suggests their self-proclaimed totally free web browser. ​ 
  
-Download ​Firefox ​- Free Web Browser(n.d.). Retrieved February 92015from https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/​firefox/​new/?​utm_source=getfirefox-com&​utm_medium=referral+For some unbeknownst reason to even myself, I personally use both Internet Explorer and Google Chrome on my laptop. I have often used Firefox ​on public computers and as an incredibly uneducated software user, I honestly cannot notice a huge distinction between each of the software for the purposes I use them forAccording to the Firefox website, this free software has features mostly geared toward privacy protectionEach program claims to feature Do Not Track, which allows users to express their inclination not to be tracked by websites, for example, preventing behavioral advertisement;​ ads geared toward users based on browsing historyFirefox also claims to have private browsing and forget button features, which also protect and remove browsing history from the knowledge of most outside parties. Not surprisingly,​ these features do not apply to Internet service providers, employers, or websites visited; in other words, users cannot remain completely anonymous on the Internet, a virtually impossible task no matter what software is used. Based on my experience and little knowledge of the programs I use, I would venture to guess these features are not entirely true for Chrome or Internet Explorer. One feature I find particularly appealing about Firefox is the secure connection feature, which (as impliedchecks if web connections are indeed secure, protecting against phishing and malwareAs already establishedI am quite uneducated in the ‘anything tech-related’ world; as I understand itanti-phishing is a form of identity theft protection that could occur by a user submitting personal information into a seemingly legitimate website, and malware can also be used to gain access to personal information,​ or spread computer ‘infections.’ I find this feature particularly appealing, as well as the automatic security updatesI am not even entirely sure if and when the current browsing software programs I use update their security features, so knowing it is automatic for Firefox would give me some peace of mind. Less serious issues of software include the opportunity for Firefox to be personalized with what features are kept based on use and disuse. As far as I know, this option is not even a reality for the propriety software I currently use. Based on this, I would say Firefox would fulfill my needs, and would hopefully protect my privacy more than Chrome and Internet Explorer. One interesting thing to note though, according to the GNU Operating System website, Firefox is not entirely ethical and even offers its own version of the Mozilla browser called GNU IceCat. While GNU does acknowledge that the source code for Firefox is free, the logo is trademarked and distributed plug-ins and addons are not considered free software. So, while one website suggests Firefox as a replacement for the mainstream proprietary software Chrome and Internet explorer, GNU suggests their self-proclaimed totally free web browser.  
  
-GNUzilla and IceCat - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. (2014, October 21). Retrieved February 9, 2015, from http://​www.gnu.org/​software/​gnuzilla/​ 
  
 AbiWord: to replace Microsoft Word AbiWord: to replace Microsoft Word
- Perhaps the most appealing feature initially for me is the fact that AbiWord is much less expensive (it’s free) than the surprisingly expensive Microsoft Word software. This can also be run on several operating systems including Windows, Linux, QNX, FreeBSD, and Solaris, of course I try to keep these things as simple as possible and due to lack of patience for learning about other operating systems, I run my laptop with Windows, and so it is appealing that this free software is compatible with my current operating system. For most college students, money is a top concern, while another is the question of compatibility with other software when turning in assignments;​ therefore, a free word processor such as AbiWord that produces files compatible with OpenOffice, Word and WordPerfect (and more) is ideal. This word processor is also particularly appealing to me because it is quite minimalistic. I essentially use my Word program to only type basic word documents for assignments (much like this one) and papers, hardly ever anything else that requires extensive features. Rarely am I required to create a word document with graphics, but when I do, Word gets bogged down in the process. AbiWord claims to be ‘lightweight’,​ allowing it to handle more, run quicker than most word processors, and requires very few resources. This makes AbiWord compatible with relatively any system, but also offers plugins which can sophisticate the software to perform more functions for those who are so inclined. I presume that the word processor I am currently using includes a significant amount of features which I may never use or even be aware of, making the smaller Abiword more fit to my needs. One Linux user is duly impressed with the Abiword software, pointing out one feature I was previously unaware of. This feature mentioned is the ability to work collaboratively on a document with more than one person at the same time. In my mind, the concept is similar to GoogleDocs, proprietary software. Ultimately, the thought of downloading and learning new software such as Abiword is quite intimidating to me, but since it is hailed as such a simple program, it may be worthwhile to try and replace the unnecessary Microsoft Word loaded with features I never use day to day. 
  
-About AbiWord(n.d.). Retrieved February 92015from http://​www.abisource.com/​information/​about+Perhaps the most appealing feature initially for me is the fact that AbiWord ​is much less expensive ​(it’s freethan the surprisingly expensive Microsoft Word softwareThis can also be run on several operating systems including WindowsLinuxQNX, FreeBSD, and Solaris, of course I try to keep these things as simple as possible and due to lack of patience for learning ​about other operating systemsI run my laptop with Windows, and so it is appealing that this free software is compatible with my current operating systemFor most college studentsmoney is a top concern, while another is the question of compatibility with other software when turning in assignments;​ therefore, a free word processor such as AbiWord that produces files compatible with OpenOffice, Word and WordPerfect (and moreis idealThis word processor is also particularly appealing to me because it is quite minimalistic. I essentially use my Word program to only type basic word documents for assignments (much like this one) and papers, hardly ever anything else that requires extensive features. Rarely am I required to create a word document with graphics, ​but when I do, Word gets bogged down in the processAbiWord claims to be ‘lightweight’allowing it to handle morerun quicker than most word processors, and requires very few resourcesThis makes AbiWord compatible with relatively any system, but also offers plugins which can sophisticate the software to perform more functions for those who are so inclinedI presume that the word processor I am currently using includes a significant amount of features which I may never use or even be aware of, making the smaller Abiword more fit to my needsOne Linux user is duly impressed with the Abiword software, pointing out one feature I was previously unaware of. This feature mentioned is the ability to work collaboratively on a document with more than one person at the same time. In my mind, the concept is similar to GoogleDocs, proprietary software. Ultimately, the thought of downloading and learning new software such as Abiword is quite intimidating to me, but since it is hailed as such a simple program, it may be worthwhile to try and replace the unnecessary Microsoft Word loaded with features I never use day to day. 
-GermainJ(2010March 24). LINUX PICKS AND PANSAbiWord:​ Like MS Word but Without ​the JunkRetrieved February 92015from http://www.linuxinsider.com/​story/​69603.html+
  
 ClamWin: to replace Norton Antivirus or McAfee ClamWin: to replace Norton Antivirus or McAfee
- The free software ClamWin claims to offer the same protection as Norton Antivirus or McAfee, while remaining as an open source code that is easy to install. ClamWin boasts high detection rates for viruses and spyware, a scanning scheduler to set up times to scan the computer, a regularly updated database that comes with automatic downloads, and a ‘standalone virus scanner’ with right-click menu integration to Windows Explorer, and supposedly the ability to automatically remove virus infections from Microsoft Outlook. With all that, ClamWin claims to have over 600,000 daily users, worldwide. According to many reviews though, these claims are quite lofty and this software isn’t even worth having, even though it is free. The main problem most users find is that it does not include an “on-access real-time scanner,” which basically means real-time protection is not a feature of this software. Many users who tested this software also state that every file has to be manually scanned, or an automated scan schedule must be set up that is ridiculously frequent, and for each drive in a computer. My main concern is that ClamWin also does not even get rid of viruses when found unless the “Report Only” default setting is switched to “Remove” or “Move to Quarantine Folder.” Furthermore,​ viruses and malware are not even always found, leaving one susceptible to spyware, phishing attacks, and other sorts of complications that could come with unhealthy websites. The general consensus by people who actually know software, is that ClamWin hardly does any good even with extensive attention to it and understanding how it works. Personally, this software would never be beneficial to me because I would not have the faintest clue as to how to run it. Even looking at websites featuring how to get the most out of this software, I would be skeptical at the effectiveness and question whether or not it would be worth my time and effort. The monetary investment into proprietary Norton or McAfee Antivirus software may be well worth it to avoid potentially expensive repairs if my laptop does become infected with a virus or some website is able to obtain personal information due to a questionable virus protection program. While the idea of free software may sound appealing, I fail to see the harm in proprietary software especially if its goal is to protect users. ​ 
  
-About ClamWin ​Free Antivirus. ​(n.d.). Retrieved February 92015, from http://www.clamwin.com/​content/​view/​71/​1/​ +The free software ​ClamWin ​claims to offer the same protection as Norton ​Antivirus ​or McAfee, while remaining as an open source code that is easy to installClamWin boasts high detection rates for viruses and spyware, a scanning scheduler to set up times to scan the computer, a regularly updated database that comes with automatic downloadsand a ‘standalone virus scanner’ with right-click menu integration to Windows Explorerand supposedly the ability to automatically remove virus infections ​from Microsoft OutlookWith all that, ClamWin claims to have over 600,000 daily users, worldwideAccording to many reviews though, these claims are quite lofty and this software isn’t even worth havingeven though it is freeThe main problem most users find is that it does not include an “on-access real-time scanner,” which basically means real-time protection is not a feature of this softwareMany users who tested this software also state that every file has to be manually scannedor an automated scan schedule must be set up that is ridiculously frequentand for each drive in a computerMy main concern is that ClamWin also does not even get rid of viruses when found unless the “Report Only” default setting is switched to “Remove” or “Move to Quarantine Folder.” ​Furthermoreviruses and malware are not even always found, leaving one susceptible to spyware, phishing attacks, and other sorts of complications that could come with unhealthy websitesThe general consensus by people who actually know software, is that ClamWin ​hardly does any good even with extensive attention to it and understanding how it worksPersonallythis software would never be beneficial to me because I would not have the faintest clue as to how to run it. Even looking at websites featuring how to get the most out of this softwareI would be skeptical at the effectiveness and question whether or not it would be worth my time and effortThe monetary investment into proprietary Norton or McAfee Antivirus software may be well worth it to avoid potentially expensive repairs if my laptop does become infected with a virus or some website is able to obtain personal information due to a questionable virus protection program. While the idea of free software may sound appealing, I fail to see the harm in proprietary software especially if its goal is to protect users
-        LillyP(2011March 23)ClamWin Free Antivirus Review. Retrieved February 92015from http://www.maximumpc.com/​article/​clamwin_free_antivirus_review +
-         +
-VanderWoudeS. (n.d.). Configuring ​ClamWin. ​Retrieved February 92015from http://​cyberpillar.com/​dirsver/​1/​mainsite/​techns/​bhndscen/​protsoft/​antimalw/​antivir/​avmswin/​clamwin/​cfgclmwn/​cfg clmwn.htm+
  
-Used for each paragraph: 
-Hamm, T. (2014, October 2). 30 Essential Pieces Of Free (and Open) Software for Windows - The Simple Dollar. Retrieved February 9, 2015, from http://​www.thesimpledollar.com/​30-essential-pieces-of-free-and-open-software-for- windows/​ 
  
bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu.txt · Last modified: 2015/02/18 11:40 by bhart05_mail.roosevelt.edu