Comment Only on-demand (manual) scans were hit (Score 1) 353
A note of interest: lost in the noise by many people in this forum is the report (in the mainstream media) that only manual (on-demand) scans resulted in any problem at all.
The vast majority of users today depend on automated scanning of files as they are used. Automated scans had no trouble.
One of those cases where what would normally be thought of as an extra-cautious approach actually caused extra-trouble.
I've got no inside knowledge, but would guess that the automated scanning path is tested far more carefully (since it has larger implications for potential harm).
Is this an argument for staying close to the mainstream, due to the higher QA bar applied to majority users? Interesting that this brings potential pressure on moving away from a slow-but-careful approach and toward a fast-automated approach. An AntiVirus version of "Real Programmers write in Assembler? Hahahahahaha!!!" ;)
The vast majority of users today depend on automated scanning of files as they are used. Automated scans had no trouble.
One of those cases where what would normally be thought of as an extra-cautious approach actually caused extra-trouble.
I've got no inside knowledge, but would guess that the automated scanning path is tested far more carefully (since it has larger implications for potential harm).
Is this an argument for staying close to the mainstream, due to the higher QA bar applied to majority users? Interesting that this brings potential pressure on moving away from a slow-but-careful approach and toward a fast-automated approach. An AntiVirus version of "Real Programmers write in Assembler? Hahahahahaha!!!"
