🚀 go-pugleaf

Boy, this seems to be the week for it. Opened up the new (November 9)
PC-Week and on page 141 the lead to the Buyer's Guide is on "Network-
Operable Anti-Virus Software"

The section starts with a page of tips, comments, and quotes that would
have been very handy - in 1989 - but is sadly out of date today. Despite
the header, no information on network needs is made and the listings make
one wonder if the writers actually know what a network is !

I expect the readers to be confused about exactly what the different 
products do since I certainly was 8*(. For instance one "Novell Netware, 3.0
to 5.0" (confusing enough - the fine print indicates that "3.0-5.0" probably
refers to MS-DOS -I think) product provides "..logging of virus activity by 
user name or node address..." - sounds like a server module, right ? But two 
columns over "Memory Resident Features" lists "TSR can be loaded in high 
memory". TSR ? (not NLM) High memory ? (Netware uses a flat model).

Eventually some intelligence was gathered: if the product ran on everything
under the sun (the bright one), it was something that could be loaded on
an MS-DOS (or in at least one case on MACs) platform and could check/scan/
validate anything that MS-DOS could reach. In other words, my 1600 byte
CANARY written in 1989 to pick up the DATACRIME would qualify under all
of the networks listed (except Appleshare - well maybe if the MAC was running
SOFTPC 8*) and not require any memory, high or flat.

On the other hand, if a product only ran on Netware then *maybe* it was a 
NLM (McAfee's NETSHIELD is an NLM but didn't say so - never did figure out 
what Central Point's "master NLM and slave NLM support" means. 

At any rate, of the 25 products listed (no ranking was presented), I suspect
that only four acually provided separate server modules, the rest were
simply DOS based anti-virals that either were able to examine connected
server directories (as DOS directories), or were loadable by the client from
the server (and available as "server packs"). Since the only criteria is
for the program not to blow up on a drive that may not have a MBR, that
might not respond instantly, or that might have a locked file, qualification
is not difficult.

Maybe to expect something more than a three-year-out-of-date commentary or
less than the whole calabash claims from unrestrained vendors would be too 
much (well I know one journalist who could be accurate and demand accuracy 
but she is awfully quiet these days). Then again maybe a 1965 Pontiac 2+2 
could do 0-60 in 3.8 seconds.

					Warmly,
						Padgett

  (lets see, 421 Milt Shornack cubic inches, gear for 60 mph in first, 
   open exhausts, Firestone cantilever racing tires, and a Smokey Yunick 
   stopwatch...)