I for one fully understand that of course. I wrote the experiences down to detail the summary of comparisons which is what many people require and ask for when searching for an AV solution.
Of course, though, it isnt so simple or just to just dismiss such comparisons and summaries because, after all, Clam exists to provide a particular job; and if 'the people' ("authors") that are responsible for it do not get feedback on it then they wouldnt be able to improve it. To think that someones experiences (written or otherwise) is worthy of a "we do our best so stop moaning" actually doesnt achieve the goal of being a reliable product. And if no one used it (because it was so terrible) and the authors didnt know WHY it wasnt being used, then their efforts would all be in vain and wasted. So it is perfectly reasonable for people to make the comparisons and report the findings. After all, what is the point of spending time on writing and marketing a program that frankly is useless and will never be used by anyone. (Also, we bear in mind the nature of a the product: an Anti Virus product. No point in people loading it thinking their system will be protected somewhat, just to find that the one virus it didnt stop that destroyed their PC was because it was one that simply wasnt considered because 'we dont have time'. That's no consolation.)
It should be noted, for those that fail to see it, that I said in the previous post that I use Bitdefender, Avira and Clam. That means I use Clam
and therefore I have CHOSEN to still use clam. And that gives me the right to comment on its effectiveness and give my feedback to such.
I agree about the comment about it being doubtful they have just added a signature for a virus that is 17 months (old and that its likely a consequence of a heuristic maybe to a newer virus recently). That leaves me wondering though: does this REALLY make the situation more acceptable...... or does it make it worse?
p.s "Snort and Yara" Is this a software or narcotic??