Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!mti!jarthur!purves
From: purves@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Purves)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: viruses, computer & bio
Message-ID: <1666@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 23 Jul 89 20:43:27 GMT
References: <20800007@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: purves@jarthur.UUCP (Bill Purves)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
Lines: 35

In article <20800007@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>I was having a discussion with a friend about computer viruses,
>and he was saying that he thought that they weren't really like
>biological viruses.  Several other people have expressed this view,
>that the term "virus" is misleading.  Seems to me that it captures
>quite a few of the critical qualities of computer viruses, and the
>analogy holds up quite well, for several reasons:
>
>* First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has
>  of replicating itself.  That is, if you view organisms as merely
>  vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses
>  represent the minimal means of doing so.

Sorry, but this isn't true.  Viruses come closer to representing the
MAXIMAL means.  A virus is not self-reproducing.  It must subvert the
molecular machinery of a living organism in order to be replicated.
A bacteriophage needs a living bacterium for its replication; a virus
of humans requires a human being for its replication.  (A single cell
will suffice, but that is available in the lab, not in nature.)  In
this sense, bacteria represent "more minimal" means, since they
reproduce without any help at all (and don't need partners -- a human
also requires another human being for its reproduction  ;-)

>In summary, the computer virus metaphor is very apt, and I don't know
>why people want to criticize it.  I welcome your replies and comments.

It's all a matter of taste, of course.  The term "computer virus" is
well established by now, and that's fine with me.  However, I don't
view the computer virus as being specifically biological-virus-like.
The term "computer pathogen," while less euphonious, seems closer to
the mark.  The computer virus is no more like a virus than it is like,
say, a pathogenic bacterium or protozoan.  De gustibus . . .

(bill)