Message-ID: <41191D9E.9772.A0DB7D07@localhost>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: (no subject)

Todd Burroughs to Frank Knobbe:

> > Isn't the complete lack of naming standardization in the AV industry
> > simply amazing? Imagine that were the case in science, particular
> > medicine...
> 
> No shit.  They should at least get together and come up with some common
> naming convention.  They need to make some common "naming authority", it's
> not difficult, we do it all the time with other software and as mentioned,
> in all scientific disciplines.  Otherwise, things become very convoluted
> for us in the know.  This is irrelevent to the general population,
> but is necessary for the people who have to deal with these things.

Believe it or not we know, and things are being done about it.

The "scientific disciplines" and others you speak of don't have to deal 
with things that happen in any and all possible combinations of as 
often, as fast, polymorphically, metamorphically, combinatorially, etc 
as the AV industry does _and generally_ have had several generations of 
academic research to form, refine, toss out and start over, etc their 
classifaction and naming systems.  Still, I agree that we AV 
researchers could do naming better but there is not sufficient external 
pressure to force the industry to try to do a better job of naming than 
it currently does so it has no reason to "do the hard yards" that any 
significant improvement in naming consistency will require...

> How about it "AV guys"?  (I mean to be nice here...)

Other than a few voices wailing within the industry, there are some 
much larger scale moves afoot that just may change the "there is not 
sufficient external pressure" factor I mentioned above, though 
realistically these moves may take years rather than months to produce 
significant improvement, but they are a start...


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

Powered by blists - more mailing lists