On 9/27/05, Tripp Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
>
> >From my day job. When looking at purchasing various products, we go
>
> So you have experienced first hand, where 'open source' (free as in
> speech) products have gotten the cold shoulder due to OMB in U.S.
> Feder
Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
From my day job. When looking at purchasing various products, we go
from our Department guides which are based on OMB and/or NIST
standards. If the US Govt is serious about it.. then the OMB would put
in a clause that US Government funds could only be used when the
anti
Hi,
sure, i like the idea, but im as sure they wont get it done properly.
why?
lets say the naming problem is as old as the virus problem itself.
maybe not that old, but when the first two av scanners were availible,
exactly these problems showed up.
A calls it cat, B calls it dog.
so why shall
On 9/27/05, Tripp Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
>
> > The standard big stick is that the US Govt OMB will require all US
> > Govt Computers to use vendors that list their viruses with the CME
> > numbers. This uses the 'we are going to spend our money on those who
> >
Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
The standard big stick is that the US Govt OMB will require all US
Govt Computers to use vendors that list their viruses with the CME
numbers. This uses the 'we are going to spend our money on those who
comply' which gets most vendors to comply. This also works against
On 9/27/05, Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In an industry where being consistantly first with anti-viral code translates
> to
> revenue there is no reason to expect adding this layer of bureaucracy will
> gather much following. This is a solution for an insignificant problem. It is
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 00:10 +1000, Bill Maidment wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Since the so-called "major players" are supposedly on board with this,
will we see clamav providing input to this project?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1862251,00.asp
Frankly, it
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 00:10 +1000, Bill Maidment wrote:
> Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> > Since the so-called "major players" are supposedly on board with this,
> > will we see clamav providing input to this project?
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1862251,00.asp
> >
> > Frankly, it seems pr
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 14:53, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> Since the so-called "major players" are supposedly on board with this,
> will we see clamav providing input to this project?
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1862251,00.asp
>
> Frankly, it seems pretty hokey to me...
I'd like to know w
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Since the so-called "major players" are supposedly on board with this,
will we see clamav providing input to this project?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1862251,00.asp
Frankly, it seems pretty hokey to me...
I say, everyone do their own thing. Whoever choses th
10 matches
Mail list logo
