Some ideas from you folks

[Mark G.]

I was recently using NAV 2003 Pro that I had gotten as a gift. Recently, the
virus definitions subscription has come up and it is indicating that I
should renew. With the last version of NAV I had (NAV 2000), went it came to
renewal time, I could simply just install the program, reinstall it and
boom, I had another year of virus definition updates. But in this case, I
can not do that with this version. I do like this version, but I am not
going to pay for AV software since I haven't in some time now. So I am
wondering, does anyone know how to renew NAV 2003 for another free year of
virus definitions? I thought of going to AVG as I had used it in the past
and it seemed just as good as Norton's. Is it still just as reliable and all
as NAV 2003? Any other ideas?

Thanks much for taking some time and helping me here.

 

[Ken Maltby]

I was recently using NAV 2003 Pro that I had gotten as a gift. Recently,
the
virus definitions subscription has come up and it is indicating that I
should renew. With the last version of NAV I had (NAV 2000), went it came
to
renewal time, I could simply just install the program, reinstall it and
boom, I had another year of virus definition updates. But in this case, I
can not do that with this version. I do like this version, but I am not
going to pay for AV software since I haven't in some time now.

So having established yourself as a thief, and having no regard for
the effort made to generate "another year of virus definition updates",
you wish to continue to leach off the suckers who are willing to pay
for the work that goes into providing those updates. I mean why
should you, after all you got away without paying for so long, that's
your point isn't it?

A better question might be: Why do you think you should be provided
these updates free of charge? Do you think some programmers should
go unpaid for their efforts? Or is it that you are a special case, your
needs should be paid for by others? Are you some kind of "Cyber
charity case"? Surely you can come up with some sob story that will
establish your "entitlement".

So I am

 

[Matt Austin]

So having established yourself as a thief, and having no regard for
the effort made to generate "another year of virus definition updates",
you wish to continue to leach off the suckers who are willing to pay
for the work that goes into providing those updates. I mean why
should you, after all you got away without paying for so long, that's
your point isn't it?

A better question might be: Why do you think you should be provided
these updates free of charge? Do you think some programmers should
go unpaid for their efforts? Or is it that you are a special case, your
needs should be paid for by others? Are you some kind of "Cyber
charity case"? Surely you can come up with some sob story that will
establish your "entitlement".

So I am

Virus definitions are just glorified text files. Any programming effort
is minimal. Their company is in the middle of a huge downward spiral
(case in point: Symantec Client Security 2 is awful, slow, and
unreliable bloatware). The LiveUpdate service is subscription-based,
and I assume this is what is no longer functional. However, there
should be no need to pay annually for up-to-date virus definitions if
your scan engine is still supported. You should be able to download
definitions manually from symantec.com without any registration or
subscription, as you are a licensed user of the scan engine. Trying to
get a free renewal to LiveUpdate would be wrong (even if it is Symantec).

HTH.
Matt

 

[Ken Maltby]

Virus definitions are just glorified text files. Any programming effort
is minimal. Their company is in the middle of a huge downward spiral
(case in point: Symantec Client Security 2 is awful, slow, and unreliable
bloatware). The LiveUpdate service is subscription-based, and I assume
this is what is no longer functional. However, there should be no need to
pay annually for up-to-date virus definitions if your scan engine is still
supported. You should be able to download definitions manually from
symantec.com without any registration or subscription, as you are a
licensed user of the scan engine. Trying to get a free renewal to
LiveUpdate would be wrong (even if it is Symantec).

HTH.
Matt

Ok, Matt since these are such trivial efforts why don't you
provide these "glorified text files" yourself? You do have all
the data on hand, don't you? How much effort could it take?
You seem to think it's not enough to pay someone else to do.

You also seem to feel that once you have a scan engine, you
should be able to get the data that "fuels" that engine, forever
without paying those who dug it up, refined and distributed it.
Do you drive a solar powered car, perchance?

Why is Symantec obligated to provide you with the virus
information on all the latest threats, for year after year, with
no compensation?

Ken

 

[Philip Callan]

Why is Symantec obligated to provide you with the virus
information on all the latest threats, for year after year, with
no compensation?

Ken

Because they /got/ their compensation when you purchased the program the
first time.

It doesn't say 'Norton Antivirus 2003 (Will only work for 1 year)' on
the box.

Your /subscription/ that allows you to use the internet and unattended
download new virus definition files may expire, but they /ARE/ obligated
to keep providing virus definitions to be downloaded and manually
installed for as long as they sell/support a previous version of their
scan engine.

But, given your stupid enough to keep using OE, I think your about the
last ****wit who gets to make a comment about viruses.

begin OEisapieceofshit

 

[Ken Maltby]

Ken Maltby wrote:

Replacing what was snipped:

Ok, Matt since these are such trivial efforts why don't you
provide these "glorified text files" yourself? You do have all
the data on hand, don't you? How much effort could it take?
You seem to think it's not enough to pay someone else to do.

You also seem to feel that once you have a scan engine, you
should be able to get the data that "fuels" that engine, forever
without paying those who dug it up, refined and distributed it.
Do you drive a solar powered car, perchance?

Because they /got/ their compensation when you purchased the program the
first time.

It doesn't say 'Norton Antivirus 2003 (Will only work for 1 year)' on the
box.

Actually the program still works and will catch and remove all the
viruses it could when you bought it, plus any that the company has
included in virus definitions made available after your purchase. It
will continue to "work" in this manner with or without any further
updating.

Lets see if I understand your position; if I were to buy a book
that lists all movies out on DVD this year, then I should be able to
compel the publisher of that book to provide me with a listing of all
the new DVDs that come out next year, and the year after that, and
so on forever without me paying any more. After all I compensated
them when I bought that first book, right? Perhaps the book's title
was : "DVDs 2003".

Your /subscription/ that allows you to use the internet and unattended
download new virus definition files may expire, but they /ARE/ obligated
to keep providing virus definitions to be downloaded and manually
installed for as long as they sell/support a previous version of their
scan engine.
But, given your stupid enough to keep using OE, I think your about the
last ****wit who gets to make a comment about viruses.

Despite the fact that I use OE, and despite the fact that I don't mug
my address; I have yet to acquire a virus. Even when some wit such as
yourself has tried to send some my way. I am sure that you have much
greater experience with viruses, than I. I won't stoop so low as to point
out just how stupid you have to be, to open an infected file, without good
protection in place.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Philip Callan]

Lets see if I understand your position; if I were to buy a book
that lists all movies out on DVD this year, then I should be able to
compel the publisher of that book to provide me with a listing of all
the new DVDs that come out next year, and the year after that, and
so on forever without me paying any more. After all I compensated
them when I bought that first book, right? Perhaps the book's title
was : "DVDs 2003".

No, your comparing a physical object with software, one has a production
cost, one does not.

The 'cost' to symantec once a virus is disassembled, analyzed and a
signature file made for it, is 0.

They do it once, and that signature file never costs them another cent,
not if they give it to 100 people, or 100 Million.

Maybe if you had a DVD, that was a database of ever baseball statistic
since the MLB was started.

It was advertised as 'the complete reference' and 'free updates of
statistics' so that it was always current.

Now, after a year, the company stops allowing you to connect to their DB
with your DVD's program, but still allows you to download
17-09-04statistics.csv and 18-09-05statistics etc.....

The cost of compiling those statistics is a one time shot, after that it
costs them nothing, so don't compare physical economics to software, it
only makes you look stupid.

Despite the fact that I use OE, and despite the fact that I don't mug
my address; I have yet to acquire a virus. Even when some wit such as
yourself has tried to send some my way.

Really? maybe you should hang out with one of those 'wits' as you seem
to be lacking, there was no attachment on my message, and especially not
a virus, its only Outhouse Express that thinks there was an attachment,
because its a sloppy coded POS, much like Windows, which is /WHY/
consumers are paying for 3rd party Anti-virus software to fix the holes
in the OS they paid for.

I am sure that you have much
greater experience with viruses, than I.

Probably, I watched as the Personal Computer rapidly became the Personal
Incubator after Windows kludged its way on the Internet without
appropriate security.

I won't stoop so low as to point

out just how stupid you have to be, to open an infected file, without good
protection in place.

No? How about pointing out how stupid Microsoft had to be, to make OE
/open/ files without you telling it to, don't forget 'preview mode' is
'OPEN' to windoze.

Luck;
Ken

Luck is for those without skill.

 

[Ken Maltby]

No, your comparing a physical object with software, one has a production
cost, one does not.

You have obviously never produced any commercial product.

The 'cost' to symantec once a virus is disassembled, analyzed and a
signature file made for it, is 0.

They do it once, and that signature file never costs them another cent,
not if they give it to 100 people, or 100 Million.

And if all "100 Million" could be counted on to pay their fair share of
the cost of the disassembly, analysis and compilation of the signature
files,
then only a few cents would be involved. Unfortunately there are too many
who have as slippery a sense of ethics, who can concoct as elaborate
rationalizations for their theft of the efforts of others, as you. So we
all
must pay more to make up for those leaches, such as yourself.

Maybe if you had a DVD, that was a database of ever baseball statistic
since the MLB was started.

It was advertised as 'the complete reference' and 'free updates of
statistics' so that it was always current.

Funny I can't find a "Free updates" or "always current" statement on
any of my "SystemWorks" boxes.

Now, after a year, the company stops allowing you to connect to their DB
with your DVD's program, but still allows you to download
17-09-04statistics.csv and 18-09-05statistics etc.....

The cost of compiling those statistics is a one time shot, after that it
costs them nothing, so don't compare physical economics to software, it
only makes you look stupid.

Even making software available "Free of Charge" costs something, that
you think otherwise is most telling. Your "one time shot" is paid for by
someone, you just want to be sure it's not you, right? The people who
buy this year's product have to pay for your use of this year's data as
well as their own, but that's ok because once they have paid, "it costs
nothing" to give it to you for free. All the people who produce those
updates, have living expenses and what ever you originally paid won't
cover that forever.

 

[Philip Callan]

And if all "100 Million" could be counted on to pay their fair share of
the cost of the disassembly, analysis and compilation of the signature
files, then only a few cents would be involved. Unfortunately there are too many
who have as slippery a sense of ethics, who can concoct as elaborate
rationalizations for their theft of the efforts of others, as you. So we
all must pay more to make up for those leaches, such as yourself.

First off, count the thousands, or probably /millions/ of copies of NAV
that have sold over the years, they recouped the cost of developing a
scan engine a while back, the AV industry is a parasite that only lives
feeding on the weakness of another.

Second, Symantec, and others like them killed off the proper way to look
for viruses, with heuristics, looking for behavior, not signature based
'mugshots'. People are vulnerable because they 'need' that 'antivirus
signature update' to make sure their AV program will 'catch' that latest
nasty.

Third, I don't concoct elaborate rationalization for the 'theft of the
efforts of others' as you accuse me of you braindead ****wit,

You get a program like PC-Cillin, and after their 'updater' tool stops
automatically updating, you can still go to their page and /LEGALLY/
download new virus definition files, so you can keep your scan engine
updated, and within a few versions of products, if enough core libraries
are the same, they sometimes allow you to download the newer scan engine
to work with whatever new 'definition file' format they choose.

Fourth, its spelled 'leech' you moron, and I run linux, I don't need to
run anti-virus software. So even if downloading updates wasn't allowed,
I'm not a drain on Symantec or any other AV companies resources.

Funny I can't find a "Free updates" or "always current" statement on
any of my "SystemWorks" boxes.

Systemworks is a bundle, and the box space is limited to giving an
overview of the entire suite of products, try going into a local
computer store and reading the box for /just/ NAV2004

Here's from the webpage:
http://www.symantec.com/nav/nav_9xnt/features.html

Key Features

[snipped for brevity]

Downloads new virus protection updates automatically to protect against
new threats.*
^---- [see that asterix? it's pretty small on the box and
the text for it that is below is a hell of a lot smaller, they didn't
have it on the 03 box, and only started 'warning' people in small print
that their updates expired in 04/05]

*Twelve months of protection updates included with purchase of Norton
AntiVirus 2005; annual subscriptions available online for subsequent
updates per computer.

------

Their unit sales of NAV and NSW have more than paid their development
costs, and the fact that they make a living feeding off people who don't
know any better, and accepted the fact that they 'need' anti-virus
software, because they 'need' windows.

{snip rest of Kenny's whine about the poor, starving people working for
Anti-virus firms}

 

[Ken Maltby]

First off, count the thousands, or probably /millions/ of copies of NAV
that have sold over the years, they recouped the cost of developing a scan
engine a while back, the AV industry is a parasite that only lives feeding
on the weakness of another.

Second, Symantec, and others like them killed off the proper way to look
for viruses, with heuristics, looking for behavior, not signature based
'mugshots'. People are vulnerable because they 'need' that 'antivirus
signature update' to make sure their AV program will 'catch' that latest
nasty.

Third, I don't concoct elaborate rationalization for the 'theft of the
efforts of others' as you accuse me of you braindead ****wit,

Their unit sales of NAV and NSW have more than paid their development
costs, and the fact that they make a living feeding off people who don't
know any better, and accepted the fact that they 'need' anti-virus
software, because they 'need' windows.

{snip rest of Kenny's whine about the poor, starving people working for
Anti-virus firms}

While you may be able to convince yourself and your socialist comrades
that the only costs are those associated with the development of the core
search engine, it is obvious that not only does development continue, but
that there is a cost involved in producing the updates as needed. The
people involved may not provide a "perfect" product, and that product,
by itself, may not be the total answer to the virus problem, but this in no
way entitles you to advocate "something for nothing".

I have long since come to recognize the futility of trying to explain
the value of economic incentive or even the need for just compensation
for efforts expended, to those who adopt a liberal philosophy. How can
any logic compete with the smug self-satisfaction of your hatred of "Big
Business" and our "Capitalist" society? Especially if you can justify
getting something you can't, or can't be bothered to, produce yourself ;
for nothing. Because you believe that it would cost them little, you
feel that they should be compelled to "give ME some". (That's your whine
in case you missed it.)

The bottom line is that, if you want people to continue to be employed
developing and providing *anything* they will need to be paid to do it.

That's it for me, as this thread is becoming pointless.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Fishhead]

While you may be able to convince yourself and your socialist comrades
that the only costs are those associated with the development of the core
search engine, it is obvious that not only does development continue, but
that there is a cost involved in producing the updates as needed. The
people involved may not provide a "perfect" product, and that product,
by itself, may not be the total answer to the virus problem, but this in
no
way entitles you to advocate "something for nothing".

I have long since come to recognize the futility of trying to explain
the value of economic incentive or even the need for just compensation
for efforts expended, to those who adopt a liberal philosophy. How can
any logic compete with the smug self-satisfaction of your hatred of "Big
Business" and our "Capitalist" society? Especially if you can justify
getting something you can't, or can't be bothered to, produce yourself ;
for nothing. Because you believe that it would cost them little, you
feel that they should be compelled to "give ME some". (That's your whine
in case you missed it.)

The bottom line is that, if you want people to continue to be employed
developing and providing *anything* they will need to be paid to do it.

That's it for me, as this thread is becoming pointless.

Luck;
Ken

I agree wholeheartedly with this post...makes perfect sense to me..
Fisshhead