MBAM beta testing

Apparently MBAM is looking for participants for a public beta testing team.

Only advanced users should participate in the beta testing program.
Btw yesterday I pm-ed one of the Admins with the question if I could take part in Beta testing, and it was not possible. Although I have 2 licences, a 50 posts limit seemed to be more important

Thus the question of what exactly is an “advanced user” remains to be answered, but no one can be sure, in whatever forum, that the pertinence of what someone says is related to the number of times he said something.

Wow, that is ■■■■■■■■ isn’t it? 88)

Retardation is the act or result of delaying; the extent to which anything is ■■■■■■■■ or delayed; that which retards or delays. In particular, it can mean:

“■■■■■■” and its derivatives are words one should never use outside of DSM IV and particular engineering concerns.

You should specify which one of these acceptations you are thinking of while using the word “■■■■■■■■”:
medical concerns, real or supposed, or engineering ones?

Or you can just think about it for a second and not waste your time copying and pasting. You know what I meant.

No i don’t, but remember (or learn) i might have misinterpreted something for not being an english native.

I know no other objective way to speak about something related elsewhere then to quote it.
If not, we are only making rumors and speculations, somewhat counter-productive when speaking of bet testing.

The silver medal for the most foolish idea in the world is for mbam to run this public beta testing, the gold one is yours for linking it.

As far as the last point in concerned, there’s no use whatsoever in promoting it, as i don’t see mbam selecting as a tester John Smith (or his equivalent Jean Dupont) on the only behalf that he is a Comodo forum reader.

The first point is more interesting.

I suppose that mbam has its team of techs having done primary testing work.

If some particularly skilled mbam forum users are requested for their feedback, contacting them via pm should be enough, but requesting Mr. Everybody in the same time one must submit his candidature to the administration of this forum is another story.

In the best of the situations, how can these users be choosed? From their frequentation of these forums where, by definition, one is virtually anonymous? From a finite number of users, call it 50 or 200, making statistically no sense?

I suppose that, both in mbam and comodo forums, Mr Everybody has no particular skill, he just wants to use the software and, concerning mbam, he crosses its results with those of a similar software to persuade himself of the validity of the software or its absence.

In these conditions, we can only see two reasons for such testing by mbam.

The first one would be pure lazyness, mbam people wanting to avoid the analysis of a large scale feedback following beta testing allowed to everyone.
However, i think that mbam people are clever enough to know that, under some level, even the law of small probabilities is not valid anymore.

The second reason is much more casual: every beta tester exposes himself not only to much wasted time, but also to high crashing eventualities; asking somehow people to subscribe to such a program by their own will ascertain they shall not complain about it, but remains an absurdity, as the number of testers shall not be enough in order to make the software progress in a large variety of real situations.

The language barrier was put to rest early on.

Now, back on topic. How was it foolish for me to link this? This is most assuredly linked on every major security forum on the web.

Secondly, the point of this was to INFORM everyone who might be interested, NOT to speculate on MBAM’s motives for the test in the first place. When it was discovered that a user possibly wasn’t eligible for testing due to their # of posts and nothing else, that issue was commented on. Dragging the debate out MUCH further and needlessly using overcomplicated language waters down most of what you were trying to say.

It wasn’t a foolish link, it may be a foolish testing policy.

The language barrier was put to rest early on.
So, after being "■■■■■■■■", i would deliberately use this language barrier as a dishonest argument in the topic? Or you argue yourself that, because my english words are far to be as fluent as yours, whatever i say should be dismissed?

Come on, either you are not serious, either you are even more insulting then with your fisrt comment.

Lets’ assume that i am, now, not only “■■■■■■■■” but, worse then all, i am sorry for writing in pleonastic terms,i a retarder stranger.

it may be a foolish testing policy
Here, we fully agree: it makes no sense whatsoever.
How was it foolish for me to link this? This is most assuredly linked on every major security forum on the web.
Definitely not a valid argument: the Panurge sheep behavior, translated in the modern world in the assumption that something should be true because Facebook states it is so. Commenting the said link is one thing; merely publishing the link looks like, even if it is not true, you advocate it: the http barrier?

When did I call you ■■■■■■■■? You quoted a post from the MBAM forum which revealed an apparently half-cocked testing policy. I was referring to the testing policy, not you.

The link is posted on all of these sites for one of 2 reasons. The “sheep” thing is definitely out as I may be many things but a “sheep” is not one of them.

  1. Everyone on every site is a rabid MBAM fanboy.

  2. It is relevant news that people may be interested in.

Alright you two. Only warning you will receive. Calm down and stay on topic or be removed.
The choice is yours.
Do not escalate this.

I think that Watasha shall agree with me that both of us went somehow off topic.

Both of us nevertheless said what we thought about the on topic situation, i.e. mbam testing policy.

With his permission as he is the original poster, let us know forget about peripherical comments and ask other people, if any feel concerned, what their opinion is of the real question:
not the link itself, but whatever comment they could make concerning mbam testing policy as it is related.