> But it wasn't totally unfair either.
>
> There are free or much cheaper products available now, those weren't there
> when MS were first hit with wave after wave of virus's. But they have
> learnt from the mistakes of the big names in MS protection.
>
> The big names are shooting themselves in the foot by splitting the
> protection into tiny modules and charging stupid prices for each. So you
> can buy anti-v, anti-spam, firewall, a daft cookie protection thing and so
> on. Plus they have built such a monster that MS users are likely to stop
> using them just to get some of the speed of the machine back.
>
> I did a Symantec on a reps PC just the other day, it was the Internet
> protection suite, after Windows has started they are a few minutes where
> all resources are taken up while the protection sets itself up. I thought
> it was crashed at a couple of points. But when I started it while watching
> resources it was just part of the startup sequence. No wonder MS is wanting
> to do their own on this one. Symantec have been a good aly to IT for a long
> time, but they surely can't expect users to put up with this nonsense.
Symatec is currently working with IBM on Linux storage and backup systems.
This has been cropping up in the news for over a week. This relates to your
reference to Ghost (below).
> I know this is seperate but that Ghost and a machine recovery thing came
> with the suite, they are the biggest pile of crap of the lot, slowing down
> the whole system for very long periods. But they haven't given you a way to
> get rid of them without getting rid of all of the suite. I have tried to
> recover using that recovery program before and found that it couldn't read
> it's own files so I know it isn't actually doing anything usefull. Ghost
> I'll admit could be usefull, but not as a live mirror creation thing, it is
> far too heavy handed for that. Instead ghost should be a tool, not a
> service.
There are several tools for Linux that achieve the same things as Ghost. They
are free, too. And why discuss recovery in the first place? The mind boggles
as Linux machines can sustain long uptime and never be formatted (with the
exception of hardware issue, e.g. bad sectors).
> Then to top the lot one of our people in America who also has an up to date
> Symantec got hit with a virus and had to take his machine to a local shop
> to get cleaned up. I'll admit that I always switch on heuristics and the
> rep had switched it to it's lowest setting, but still, Symantec don't push
> that side of the protection which presumably means that they expect to be
> able to protect their users with standard anti-v techniques. Or as we have
> said before in here, it is good for business if an occasional virus gets
> through.
I am left with a bad taste when I hear about Symantec. Some customers who
sought my help had lost network functionality and were absolutely clueless
for weeks. Symantec's software was the culprit. Norton too. This O/S bloat
and layers of protection make it fragile, and prone to confuse users )apart
from ripping them off).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Spam enchanted evening..."
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:10am up 54 days 15:24, 13 users, load average: 0.29, 0.63, 0.76
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
