rtravsky@CORRAL.UWyo.Edu (Richard W Travsky) (05/24/91)
I have the March 17th P. Hoffman virus summary in front of me and something has attracted my notice: The version of FPROT she refers to is version 1.07. The current release is 1.15A and 1.16 is due out in June. Any reason why such an old version is used? Richard Travsky Division of Information Technology RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU University of Wyoming (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
padgett%tccslr.dnet@mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) (05/29/91)
>From: rtravsky@CORRAL.UWyo.Edu (Richard W Travsky) >I have the March 17th P. Hoffman virus summary in front of me and >something has attracted my notice: The version of FPROT she refers to >is version 1.07. The current release is 1.15A and 1.16 is due out in >June. >Any reason why such an old version is used? Since I have not seen Patti on the net, will venture a guess: negative free time, a condition many of us suffer from. For me, enough PC software comes my way that I am ALWAYS at least five packages behind (received the 3.1 revision of _Coherant_ over a month ago & still haven't loaded the 3.0). Add to a "real" (i.e. family supporting) 60 hr/week job that does not put a PC on my desk & normal family life (Boy Scouts, maintenance on 7 toys [three adults, two teenagers, two adolecents], cruise night, etc.) & new software is normally accessed in my "free" time between midnight & 2 a.m. <sigh>. Most of the "anti-virus reseachers" also have "real" jobs that have little to do with PCs (Ross and John excepted), this is probably why Europe and Canada lead the US in real research, testing, and laboratories. While a Novell network in my den closet (where my PCs are) is a possibility, it is not one that I have spent any time on, even if I had some ethernet cards (besides my Columbia has only one expansion slot & it is occupied).
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (05/30/91)
rtravsky@CORRAL.UWyo.Edu (Richard W Travsky) writes: >I have the March 17th P. Hoffman virus summary in front of me and >something has attracted my notice: The version of FPROT she refers to >is version 1.07. The current release is 1.15A and 1.16 is due out in >June. Due out in just a few days..actually - as soon as I have finished analysing the 100+ new viruses I have received the past couple of weeks. >Any reason why such an old version is used? Well, I wish I knew - I always send her the latest versions... - -frisk
Ray.Mann@ofa123.fidonet.org (Ray Mann) (06/10/91)
Richard Travsky was asking how come Patricia Hoffman's Virus Summaries
keep making reference to only a very old and outdated version of
F-PROT (v1.07), where the current version is v1.15, going for 1.16 and
into v2.0 very soon:
> Any reason why such an old version is used?
My suspicion is that this is probably a result of some antagonism
between Grisk and McAfee, whom Patricia Hoffman follows so closely.
Frisk is a competitor...
- --- Opus-CBCS 1.14
* Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. [714 939-1041] (1:103/208.0)
- --
Ray Mann
Internet: Ray.Mann@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Ray.Mann@ofa123.fidonet.orgrtravsky@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU (Richard W Travsky) (06/11/91)
Ray Mann [Ray.Mann@ofa123.fidonet.org] writes: > Richard Travsky was asking how come Patricia Hoffman's Virus Summaries > keep making reference to only a very old and outdated version of > F-PROT (v1.07), where the current version is v1.15, going for 1.16 and > into v2.0 very soon: > > > Any reason why such an old version is used? > > My suspicion is that this is probably a result of some antagonism > between Grisk and McAfee, whom Patricia Hoffman follows so closely. > Frisk is a competitor... _*IF*_ this is the case, then I would hate to see things take such a turn as "manipulating" the summary so as to make one package or another look good or bad. Once it is done to one package, what is to stop it form happening to another? And another? Will any package that offends be "punished" by making reference to old and less capable versions? (Or "punished" in some other manner?) The summary is an informative and valuable compilation of virus data. We users can only lose by seeing it prejudiced by mere commercial concerns. Must I be reduced to viewing the summary with a grain of salt? Richard Travsky Division of Information Technology RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU University of Wyoming (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
ofa123@uunet.UU.NET (ofa123) (06/16/91)
I think it's just too bad that Hoffman's summary keeps ignoring the latest versions of F-PROT. The SCANV shown is always the latest issue. Frisk, are you looking for distribution sites in the US? I may have a couple of systems that would be interested in becoming official distribution sites for F-PROT. Please let me know. - --- Opus-CBCS 1.14 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. [714 939-1041] (1:103/208.0) - -- Ray Mann Internet: Ray.Mann@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Ray.Mann@ofa123.fidonet.org