I wasn’t refering to Melih’s post
It’s the third time I say it! And I’ve already said that I don’t care anymore!
Leave and let live (third time I say it…) 
Yep, I’m a real fanboy… read posts, before talking
And anyway, Vettetech came with 3 different nicknames on OA’s forum, and he was really bashing :THNK
He wasn’t just saying his opinion like me
(oh yes, maybe I should repeat this: I’ve written hundreds time that I always tip people (for example, on the biggest italian forum…) to use OA or COmodo… but noone of you all red this…)
I am far from a fanboy. I used OA in the past. As in matter of fact Mike himself asked me for help with WOW issues and high latency. Also all games resulted in higher pings. Mike asked me to help him with this issue. I was going to install a logging version of OA but I decided not to cause its not my job as as a OA user to fix issues with software. When Comodo 318 was out all of a sudden my games crawled and pings and latency was higher. I sent Melih a PM and 48 hours later it was fixed. He did not ask me to help him fix it. Thats what beta testers are for and a good team of trouble shooters. I am a GM Master Certified Technician. Imagine me asking a customer if he\she could fix there car for me. Wouldn’t I look stupid. OA also made my web pages load slower even without web shield installed.
BTW Leolas. When Mike was loving his Scot’s blog post I merely posted something about “This is an opinion and not based on facts. I guess he didn’t read Matousec’s results”. Thats what I said exactly. That is not a fanboy nor is it mentioning Comodo. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I was able to read your comments on Tallemus’ forum (I was surfing the forum in those 5 minutes), and they weren’t very “friendly”
I guess you didnt read them properly. No where did I bash OA or Mike. No where did I say Comodo is better. I even made a simply comment about freedom of speech and that was denied. Show me a a quote where I said Comodo is better then OA or show me where I said OA sucks. I think not.
See this post. It proves Comodo doesn’t mind bashing and allows negative feed back. If this post was in OA Mike would clearly remove it cause heaven for bid you cannot have one negative remark. Oh no a blemish on my forums. Gotta pop it like a pimple so no one else will see.
https://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews/comodo_firewall_is_crap-t21140.0.html
Besides for Scot’s blog most people never heard of Online Armor. Look at Comodo’s achievements.
I read posts, but you don’t answer questions :-\
Greetz, Red.
Leolas, I appreciate what you are saying and I have made it clear many times, no mis-information by anyone, no matter who they are!
BTW: Has anyone been lucky enough to to catch a glimpse of what question was offensive enough to kill the whole thread?
Melih
ANd so? I’m not like you! I won’t go on tallemu’s forum saying that comodo paid download.com, pcmag and consumerresearch 88) (also because i think/hope that comodo din’t do it)
Still no answer to my question Fanboy. I am waiting :THNK
Greetz, Red.
PC Mag,CNET, and Consumersearch are actually websites and not some guys blog. Get a clue.
Afraid of the truth. LOL.
Leolas: Knowing all the back tracking that Matousec has done I would like to ask you one question and I expect an honest answer, as I am asking this seriously.
Do you think OA was ever 100% leak proof as per Matousec’s test?
thank you.
Melih
Hi ggf31416
thanks for that. But i think you missed the point of my rheotirical question
Yes Matousec did report it, however with the same token, Matousec, TWICE admitted and apologised that it was wrong.
1st
Enthusiasm ebbed away (2007/08/01 16:49) We have revealed that Online Armor passed some of leak-tests only because of user mode hooks that were not unhooked by FPR. In the most of cases, FPR would identify and remove the hooks but in case of Online Armor, FPR faced a code that protected these hooks against unhooking in very unusual way. Although the vendor of Online Armor assured us that the protection was not implemented with an intention to pass FPR tests, the protection has no real effect on the security of Online Armor and can be bypassed easily. We have removed the latests results of Online Armor from our tables and we will modify FPR such that it will be able to bypass the protection of user mode hooks of Online Armor. We will retest Online Armor and publish its real leak-testing results as soon as possible. [b]We apologize [/b] to all our visitors and to all competitive vendors for publishing incorrect results of Online Armor.
2nd
2008-03-25: We have received an email from ailef and MaratR with information about a security weakness in Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.112 Free that was tested in our challenge recently. We have successfully verified the information that the tested version of Online Armor automatically allows various privileged actions if it receives no response from the user in a few minutes after the alert is shown. We would like to thank ailef and MaratR for their findings, [b]we would like to apologize [/b] to our visitors and other vendors for possibly wrong results in case of Online Armor.
So the question is: Those versions reported to be passing 100% by matousec, were they really passing it?? Cos Matousec apologised twice for them!
Hope you understand my point.
thanks
Melih
Guys,
Could we just move on? And stop this OA vs Comodo nonsense?
Or at least move it to some other, non-vendor forum.
This is nowhere constructive IMHO.
I thought this Scott issue is also history…
By the way I see no reason to call Leolas a fanboy…
Personal preference and fanaticism is not the same…If he uses OA that doesn’t mean that Comodo isn’t better… Although they becoming better, French and Italian cars are known for being unreliable. Despite this, a lot of people bought them because their beautiful design.
@ ggf31416: That result is flawed because of a bug in OA that has only been discovered recently. I won’t explain further, as it is already corrected. I think we should finally consider that PAST.
Anyway, Melih as you have already said, Comodo’s development strategy is not based on Matousec and other leaktest results…so why are we taking it so seriously?
And who the hell cares about whats going on on OA’s forums, especially it there are no negative comments about comodo (supposedly deleted).
Comodo is already a very solid security app. AFAIK there are no publicly known security flaws in it despite that matousec 98%…However, there are a lot of people complaining about incompatibility issues with perfect disk, the chkdsk bug…For example, despite that in my opinion that bug is not the end of the world, I haven’t seen a developer comment on the perfect disk incompatibility bug…There is also TC, which is in beta…so many things we can concentrate on. And I think these are more important for the users than that 2%…Or if we are bored we can go to the “where is Ganda” topic…
But I don’t see any positive outcome of these discussions…
You are right Blas…
I think the points have been made…
time to move on…
(CLY)
Melih
i think you should call fanboy somebody else
Anyway, why? I’m not talking to you.
I think that you, melih, vettetech et cetera should try to understand it alone… :THNK