Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: rtravsky@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU (Richard W Travsky)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: Hoffman Summary & FPROT (PC)
Message-ID: <0004.9106121957.AA12675@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 91 16:07:41 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 27
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

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 keep making reference to only a very old and outdated version of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