Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!philmtl!ray
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Why "worm" instead of "germ"
Message-ID: <951@philmtl.philips.ca>
Date: 16 Jan 90 16:04:58 GMT
References: <1476@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> <76929@looking.on.ca> <77443@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd.  Product Group PC.  Montreal.
Lines: 22

In referenced article, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
 >
 >Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."  It would infect a system,
 >and then attempt to breed to neighbours by making copies of itself.
 >Like some germs, it affected its hosts by swamping them.
 >
 >So why "worm?"

"Germ" certainly is a candidate too, but a parasitic worm seems to me to be
a much more insidious thing than a mere germ.

The capability of much more "intelligent" actions by worms, like seeking out
specific hosts and sites under its own motivation, would seem to make "worm"
the more appropriate term.

[but there again I'm sure someone is going to e.g. show that WORM is in fact
an acronym, or tell us that its named after Fred Worm.....]
-- 
Ray Dunn.                    | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca
Philips Electronics Ltd.     |       ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200  Ext : 2347 (Phonemail)
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455  TLX : 05-824090