Well it is now 50/50, soya what are we going to do now? LOL
I think it should go my way because i said so ;D
I only host this poll, not make wishes come true 
It doesn’t matter how long it’ll take. This is going to last until there is a clear answer, say around 7:3 ratio?
I’d like it, if you could choose which utilities you wanted like if you just wanted the CAVS CFW that would be cool (:KWL)
I choose no, I prefer individual products.
for Melih.
I choose option 2 and a client server mechanism with encrypted connections and authentication certificates.
So the client interface can be unloaded from memory if it is not needed an this way the client interface could be connected to one or all comodo services using one or more links as the user see fit
Also an external api/sdk to the interface could be a nice addon…
And a scripting plugin…
I will give Melih as many
I can for these features expecially if he enable the
option in the forum ;D
But now I don’t have a clue…
If I vote for the suite what the result will be?
I said no,
two things come to mind in this instance.
first look at Symantecs all in security suite, it relies heavily on having all components installed to work properly, for example, to have the Firewall work without problems, still required the AV to be installed. Then if you don’t install the AV that they supply, it’s a night mare trying to remove the software from the machine. It’s almost as bad as some well known malware like spysherriff when it first came out, once it’s in, it’s hard to make sure you got it all.
Second, I feel that it would be bloat, because you have to re-write the update software to update all the software in the suite, be able to note whether or not something was installed, and then you have the issue where you have to have the software updater connect to different parts of the server for specific software updates. I could be wrong as I don’t know how that is currently setup here or at the competition.
Well, well I didn’t choose yet. But I would like to hear more about negative comments.
Fear of bloatware is not a right choice, also the packaging is not. Neither different interfaces for different services.
There is a way to solve many of these issues during the design process.
Maybe it should be created a poll specifying a set of mandatory characteristics…
I mean… Users who want a minimun size download can have it if the suite is modular. They can choose which services download (eg. only the firewall)
Users who want separate interfaces can have it also, a modular approach could provide one istance of the interface to administrate all the services or many istance to administrate services separately (one istance per service) but is also possible to group some services in one istance and another service in another istance. It’s only a matter of creating shortcut links.
Regarding the fear about one service being handicapped if another is not installed it is a matter of design decisions…
I mean If you have a car and you remove the car stereo you cannot hear music…
but if you remove the car strereo and the car engine won’t start… that could be the result of a bad design…
A suite could be deployed using:
- a tiny installer to download only desired components using a broadband connection.
- a monolithic installer that permit to install only desired components
- separate installers that could be installed in any combination
The suite name is surely to be assigned to the full installation, but that is only a marketing decision IMHO…
Another thing to note is tha a modular approach and the use of defined set of integration-aware api/protocols could make Comodo set the first stone of a collaborative architecture enabling certified developer or certified application to integrate or extend or (less sure about this) replace the set of services provided by the suite. A full-fledged Standard
He who is not using bloatware among you. Let him throw the first flame…
Halloooo :SMLR
you may open the firewall a bit and throw a flame or two to comodo users who didn’t choose to install the firewall (:TNG)
BTW, how much time to the beta release?
Ignoring unforseen changes (like the name change), 13 more days. I guess this is a good place to check for date updates:
https://forums.comodo.com/index.php/topic,6927.0.html
Bundle it together! With the ability to disable if not wanted. Everybody’s satisfied then, right? (:TNG)
Bundle everything, but at installation, setup may ask for what you wish to install.
If it will have a control center, i think that everything should be on one place.
It would be pretty good, if the Firewall and Antivirus (w/ boclean) could smartly work together.
I didn’t vote as I am unclear exactly what you mean by"suite" - thoughts of Norton/Symantec are really negative.
No - I don’t want Comodo to end up like Norton/Symantec.
I am using the comodo firewall and anti virus at the moment. Am I being asked if I want a shell for these two? The answer is no thanks.
I see no benefit of a “suite”.
Comodo - avoid the “bloat” trap of Norton/Symantec and ZoneAlarm.
If you just want the firewall, you can choose that, and not install anything else.
“Security Suites”, the recent darlings of the industry, have historically been clusterducks with conflicts and configuration problems that aggravate experienced users and lead to them being uninstalled by “normal” users (read anyone not invested in the product).
That said, if anyone can pull it off (creating a usable suite) it would be the Comodo crew.
Personally I prefer stand alone apps and believe they should continue to be offered as such allowing users to install and update according to their individual needs and preferences.
I prefer stand alone applications too. It is also easier when you want install/uninstall a certain application. Think for example about the BETA testers. At least I don’t want to be forced into a “Security Suite”.
Greetz, Red.
This “suite” bloat is not a problem as it used to be, this “problem” from what i know was originally invented by Symantec with their Home range of products. Even Symantec as far as i know have fixed these issues.
LOL, Norton “invented” the bloat 
I think they haven’t fixed that bloat issue: Welcome to the lair of Oli Warner - Oli Warner
The problem that they seem to have originally created was “Bloat created by making a suite” bloat was invented in code well before Symantec came along. Maybe McAfee beat them, not sure on that.
Not to sell Symantec products but they have fixed allot of performance issues with the 2007 range of their products from what i have heard.
As long as the stand alone products remain available, I think a suite of products would be a good idea.
If the purpose of the product suite is to replace the stand alone products, then I vote NO on the proposal of the suite.
License Kaspersky virus engine like others do + Comodo firewall.
ESQAN: exploitable firewall + KAV
Zonealarn: somewhat good firewall + KAV
ESET: nod32, lightwheight and efficient
GDATA: the best protection since it uses bitdefender/kav combination
F-Secure: good, but u need 2 ghz comp and 1GB of ram