This poll has been very interesting and I would like to expand if further if I may pls.
There has been few people who needed more clarificatino about what we mean when we say: Internet Security Suite.
I would like to suggest that we run another poll with expanded definitions to see the reaction.
Here are my suggestion:
Internet Security suite: lets call it Comodo Security Center (CSC) (he he) has the following Features:
1)User can install individual components (just want firewall… you just get firewall)
2)User can install different components and manage them from CSC (hence removing the hassle of jumping from app to app) So you get the best of both worlds, if you just want the app you just get that, if you have multiple app from Comodo, you have a much more efficient system (without comprimising security)
Can we please run another poll putting the above definition and see if people want it or not.
I can, but before that, based on your 2 suggestions it wouldn’t be a traditional “suite” anymore, would it? It almost seems like you’re picturing a special installer that’s big because it potentially contains several applications in it. If my interpretation of that is correct then surely the majority will go for it irregardless because it’s so flexible and it can satisfy both parties, no? This seems similar to LaunchPad, but I don’t know since I’ve never installed it (it was gone by the time I’ve joined the CFP crew).
This is my personal take on it, but if there’s any concern with this is that it’ll be more challenging to integrate the products, which would be what a traditional suite is (i.e. they work together and help each other, like if CAVS fails to detect a malware then CFP will be able to because it’s working on a different level)
Ok. If it’s just a customized installer that allows the user to choose which Comodo application(s) to install then I can safely assume very few, if any individual, will have complaints other than the file maybe too big to download ;D. This is based on my observations of the posts of those who voted against a (traditional) suite in this thread. However, if you still insist on a new poll thread I’ll be happy to open it (:WIN)
This will be excellent starting mark for Comodo to expand its communication to all users that there are other interesting/useful applications available to them.
He he he. I was JUST thinking about this. I’m sure it can be done. Within this special installer there should be a stage that also prompts this central controller (like the old LaunchPad) to be installed or not. Then all sides are covered.
sure of course, thats exactly the point.
seperate apps… but easier to manage and more efficient. For example… if you use realtime spyware and realtime AV, they will have many common components… why have double of them running in your system doing the same thing!? And many more efficiencies like that.
If I’m understanding u correctly Melih; this would be similar to the “COMODO Dashboard” I mentioned a while back in a posting under ‘Melihs Corner’.
The “seperate” Comodo apps that one has installed could be accessed from one central “control center”.
One could access any of the applications to monitor statistics, review/change settings, modify application behavior etc. without having to engage each individual program…or have I only confused your idea???
I applogize if I have. (:KWL)
According to his suite definition I posted yes…
But “No” currently result in more votes .
I would like to hear more about negative comments.
So I edited a previous post…
Fear of bloatware is not a right choice, also the packaging is not. Neither different interfaces for different services.
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
Reminds me back in the days of DOS, Norton Utilities 5 has this “Norton Integrator”, a menu to show what utilities NU5 has, with some helpful information (e.g. command line switches). Norton Integrator is selectable/optional to install.
However, I totally buy into Melih’s reasoning, i.e. to do a single-install for shared components. And gibran also made a good point there.
I guess more than the fear of bloat there is fear that things (settings, logs) become hidden somewhere deep in the GUI in exchange for a simple all-in-one-Suite-GUI. That’s why users (including me) want individual packages.
Heck! we are all speculating on what the suite will look like…
I don’t know a thing about that, yet I thought of a suite that is not evil like usual ones…
It’s more like trusting how things will be…
This said, I know I cannot change your mind
but if the real thing will have a modular approach then the Interface section for the firewall could have a layout like the actual one or better and it would be possible to have an interface per Software too.
The interface is only a way to represent data and to configure settings.
It is not the full thing.
If the log file is written in a standard database format (I guess that some limitation like this are caused by security concerns) we could use a standalone app too.
eg. like Visual Logparser
Regarding settings, anyone skilled in programming could write a custom interface
using the regedit trick which actually work also when comodo is protecting its registry keys (at least for me)
Regarding realtime connection monitoring there are programs like cports
A single service would be a bad idea, code reuse need a modular approach the only difference being a marginal communication overhead.
But consider added benefits like the ability to update only outdated installation services or dlls (shorter download times)
I may have missed your point but I intended to point out only the advantages of an alternate solution to this
Integrate them to use only one service process, to reduce resources, and a GUI with all the features to interact very easier.
We all now that a single process could be multithreaded so a single process should be slightly faster and equalliy responsive like a multi service implementation. Verifying several signined dlls and services could add another little overhead. But we should get more security and overall stability this way…
Using a single service a faulty code crashing would affect all protections…
