Does anyone know if F-Prot for Windows gets still developed? I think
version three came out the last millenium and now they are still at 3.14b?
What will be the next big Windows release? 3.14c at the end of this year? It
seems the only F-Prot versions they care about are those for unix and linux.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:03:13 +0100, lover wrote:

> Does anyone know if F-Prot for Windows gets still developed? I think
> version three came out the last millenium and now they are still at 3.14b?
> What will be the next big Windows release? 3.14c at the end of this year?
> It seems the only F-Prot versions they care about are those for unix and
> linux.


I normally find their mailing lists have a "pattern". There'll be no
activity for a while (obviously due to development) and then I get 3 or 4
through in the space of maybe 2-3 weeks where they release versions for
various platforms.

AFAIK, the *nix side of F-Prot is "new" (or at least publically).. so this
might be the reason you see more *nix application updates than windoze as
it's been a DOS and windoze product for a long time.. and the code may
have less bugs / work required as it's already code that's more "mature".

They definitely don't appear to stop supporting windoze.. this is where
all the action happens as such.. that'd be cutting off your nose to spite
your face IMO to stop windoze support now.

I have no affiliation with Frisk so my text above is pure opinion and my
thoughts alone =)



Regards,

Ian

--
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

"lover" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:c029ku$n71$03$(E-Mail Removed):

> Does anyone know if F-Prot for Windows gets still developed? I think
> version three came out the last millenium and now they are still at
> 3.14b? What will be the next big Windows release? 3.14c at the end of
> this year? It seems the only F-Prot versions they care about are those
> for unix and linux.
>
>

Don't know, but there is no reason to make a major version number change
unless they feel that they have made major programming changes. Maybe the
same scanning techniques still work. And if it isn't broke, why fix it?

They are publishing updates very frequently, and that's what really
counts.

They don't seem interested in becoming a toolbox (like Norton), but are
sticking to their specialty. My guess is that they are depending mostly on
subscriptions, not initial purchases, for cash flow. So there isn't any
motivation to create a new 'version' to sell.

There's a lot of room for improvements:

- Incremental signature updates
- Access to Sheduler and Updater through the RealTime Protector icon.
There's no need to have more than one icon in the tray.
- Refurbished interface. Do away this nineties style.
- For the peace of mind: the possibility to scan every filetype through the
context menu.



> Don't know, but there is no reason to make a major version number change
> unless they feel that they have made major programming changes. Maybe the
> same scanning techniques still work. And if it isn't broke, why fix it?
>
> They are publishing updates very frequently, and that's what really
> counts.
>
> They don't seem interested in becoming a toolbox (like Norton), but are
> sticking to their specialty. My guess is that they are depending mostly on
> subscriptions, not initial purchases, for cash flow. So there isn't any
> motivation to create a new 'version' to sell.

In article <c038pb$c6f$05$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> There's a lot of room for improvements:
>
> - Incremental signature updates

Do a Google search Frisk mentioned that incremental updates are planned
for version 4 a few months ago IIRC.

> - Access to Sheduler and Updater through the RealTime Protector icon.
> There's no need to have more than one icon in the tray.
> - Refurbished interface. Do away this nineties style.
> - For the peace of mind: the possibility to scan every filetype through the
> context menu.
>

What makes you think that Frisk & company aren't working on these
things?

--
Cheers-

Jeff Setaro
jasetaro <at> mags.net
http://people.mags.net/jasetaro/
PGP Key IDs DH/DSS: 0x5D41429D RSA: 0x599D2A99 New RSA: 0xA19EBD34

lover schreef:

> Does anyone know if F-Prot for Windows gets still developed? I think
> version three came out the last millenium and now they are still at 3.14b?
> What will be the next big Windows release? 3.14c at the end of this year? It
> seems the only F-Prot versions they care about are those for unix and linux.

Oh, but isn't that better than Symantec's practice, which seems to
consist in selling a slightly improved (oh well, not always) product as
a wholly new version?

lover schreef:

> - Refurbished interface. Do away this nineties style.

I don't use the Windows version so I couldn't care less. Still one can
only hope that if they are working on a new interface, they won't
succumb to the temptation of making it dependent on IE or as bloated as
that of NAV for example.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 10:03:13 +0100, "lover" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Does anyone know if F-Prot for Windows gets still developed?

IIRC they posted here (or in acv) not too long ago that the dos
version was the only one not being developed.


Jim.

On 7 Feb 2004 16:48:35 GMT, Boyd Williston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "lover" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:c029ku$n71$03$(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Does anyone know if F-Prot for Windows gets still developed? I think
> > version three came out the last millenium and now they are still at
> > 3.14b? What will be the next big Windows release? 3.14c at the end of
> > this year? It seems the only F-Prot versions they care about are those
> > for unix and linux.
> >
> >
>
> Don't know, but there is no reason to make a major version number change
> unless they feel that they have made major programming changes. Maybe the
> same scanning techniques still work. And if it isn't broke, why fix it?
>
> They are publishing updates very frequently, and that's what really
> counts.
>
I must say, it's nice to see praise for good ol' F-PROT rather than the eternal
damnation heaped upon some of the other software. I'm perfectly happy
with F-PROT for DOS and I hope Frisk doesn't succumb to a case of the bloats.

Sure it's better - I don't want to go it Symantecs way. But now F-Prot for
Windows seems to be in that part of a softwares life where it doesn't get's
developed any longer although still sporadically patches come out. Though
such software is actually dead, the manufacturer usually refuses any
comments and on the newsgroups rumors keep popping up about "something big
is about to come" and "it's not dead". The really true believers among the
users don't even want any changes because:

"why change it if it's not broke?"

It reminds me so much of the situation Adobe keeps FrameMaker in. In
adobe.framemaker is a wishlist thread with feature requests for the next
version which now has a few hundred postings and actually every poster knows
that their wishes will never be implemented. It's so sad.

Maybe the above is a bit exaggerated. I like F-Prot and the FRISK company
and love Iceland because it has no army but fairies and what not - but
F-Prot for Windows really needs a facelift and not just some Botox.




> Oh, but isn't that better than Symantec's practice, which seems to
> consist in selling a slightly improved (oh well, not always) product as
> a wholly new version?