"this glaring defect... an unfortunate liability position... how tough can it be... living in the stone age... kind of irritated about this"
not enough people understand or know what we here on this thread know about the discrepancy between the two updating methods
it is extremely difficult, as an informed user, to reconcile symantec's seemingly FUBAR approach to the IU/LU situation.
but imo there is no use being irritated, and i doubt that emailing them will make any difference (to *them*... it may make *you* feel better). and i also doubt that there is any liability on their part... if you read their eula i bet you find all kinds of disclaimers that limit their exposure in that regard.
the information campaign (yes i'll call it that) that i have waged on this thread, to better inform us all as to the disparity between LUs and IUs, has been aimed at negotiating the muddied symantec waters... not bitching. i may have voiced frustration that the situation exists, but you may have noticed, i have always offered a viable solution to the FU-ness... and that, quite simply, is to do manual installs from the IU server, not the LU server.
i have even called attention to the fact that if users want ultra fast defs, they can avail themselves of the FTP server.
and i want to respond to your "living in the stone age" question.
i think symantec puts together a pretty good antivirus package. if users wish to be on the leading edge of preparedness, then it seems to be incumbent upon *them* (the users) to take the initiative and gather defs the best way possible. we should count ourselves as lucky to be cognizant of how these updates *really* work... and know that soon symantec will rectify things. i can't imagine it being too much longer before they get this sorted out.
hth |
