Another dumb idea from Symantec

  • Thread starter Thread starter R. McCarty
  • Start date Start date
Stephen Toulouse hears that UAC is very acceptable. Symantec hears
otherwise.
It is hard for me to understand how Mr. Toulouse is hearing things that way
unless
sycophants are feeding him what he wants to hear. The UAC needs more work.
If there's a Norton to improve UAC, Microsoft shouldn't be obstructive about
that.
 
How utterly stupid of them.

"UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
this case, that is the user,"

Gee, I thought it was my computer.

Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the same
time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that has any
of their products on it, except to remove them.

steve
 
They could get Peter to commute to the Valley from Oak Bluffs maybe -
like Jobs return to Apple. It would take a big ownership stake, I think.
The relationship between Windows and Norton has been symbiotic.
I hear you say, "parasitic," and feel that's historically inaccurate.
 
Steve:
With XP Symantec had it's way to control your computer in the way
that it wanted. With Vista this control was taken away and their goal is to
get this control back. The best move that I made was eliminating Symantec,
Norton and McAfee products. I now run Nod32 without problems or excessive
overhead.
 
My favorite line:
"I think third-party applications should take the decision out of the
user's hands."
Click to expand...

I don't want third-party applications to take control of my computer... that
is a security risk in itself. Oh, but that's right, Symantec wants security
holes.

Long live UAC!
http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/ro...ntec-anti-uac-product-is-a-very-bad-idea.aspx

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
 
In message <[email protected]> "Steve
Cochran said:
How utterly stupid of them.

"UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
this case, that is the user,"

Gee, I thought it was my computer.
Click to expand...

Your first mistake. It's Microsoft's computer, they'll sometimes let
you use it.

Symantec just wants a piece for themselves.
 
I wasn't referring to a relationship between the two. I was referring to
the crap they load upon the user and fool them to pay for it.

And Peter Norton would be wise to stay far far away, and I'm sure he will.

<G>

And its not just Norton, as the others indicate. Every antivirus program
likes to add scanning email to its features and every one messes up the OE
message store, when that feature is enabled. Fortunately it seems to be
less of an issue in Vista, since the messages are no longer all in one file,
and are thus not as susceptible to mass destruction due to aggressive
antivirus activity.

steve
 
Symantec and Norton are not welcome on any computer I own.
Robert Firth said:
"I think third-party applications should take the decision out of the
user's hands."
Click to expand...

I don't want third-party applications to take control of my computer... that
is a security risk in itself. Oh, but that's right, Symantec wants security
holes.

Long live UAC!
http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/ro...ntec-anti-uac-product-is-a-very-bad-idea.aspx

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
 
No problems running Symantec at home and MacAfee at Work.
Symantec and Norton are not welcome on any computer I own.
Robert Firth said:
"I think third-party applications should take the decision out of the
user's hands."
Click to expand...

I don't want third-party applications to take control of my computer... that
is a security risk in itself. Oh, but that's right, Symantec wants security
holes.

Long live UAC!
http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/ro...ntec-anti-uac-product-is-a-very-bad-idea.aspx

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
 
You know it...I get into letches for cyber utopia all too often!

F-Prot emailed me they'd put something out for Vista. Their vigilance
thingy works and is half the size of NOD's. It doesn't mess with OE.
NOD would be more appropriate for a collection of undergraduates,
but I do not seem to be a collection of undergraduates. I like F-Prot.
 
Agreed. What a crock! Symantec puts out some of the crappiest software ever
seen from a major vendor. And then they screw up perfectly good software
when they've bought other sw companies. I believe the term I'm looking for
is "Pffflllbbbttttt!"

Lang
 
Back
Top