Talk:Lists of freeware security suites

From CastleCopsWiki

[edit] duplicate article?

Why have this article [Freeware security suites] as well as "List of security suites"? SO far they appear to be identical and both part of the Lists of Freeware Security Software series.

--Ikester 09:55, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

No need to bite my head off. I made a mistake, as usual I'm not too decisive when it comes to naming a new page. But I think I got it down now, so you can delete *both* pages this one and List of security suites .

--LU 09:05, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

OK no problem. Just noticed and thought it best to ask in case I was missing something. ... But why do you take my question as "biting your head off"? Such was not intended. --Ikester 00:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] how should we merge the duplicate articles?

Since we have sparse content for both free and commercial suites, I think only one article is necessary at present. One option is to create a TOC at [[List of security suites]] with subsections for Freeware and Commercial software. Then [[Freeware security suites]] would be set to redirect to the subsection for freeware. This will allow for future expansion while explaining and organizing current content and avoid confusion. If we get enough content to create two separate articles, we can always spread the content between the two pages later.

--Brewt 13:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so going through LU's edits, it seems that two articles with duplicate content have had their content moved to a new article.

Freeware security suites -->

List of security suites -->

Lists of freeware security suites

I'm setting up redirects on the now-empty pages to reduce confusion.

#REDIRECT [[Lists of freeware security suites]]

I'm also removing all wiki links to those pages, so they are totally unlinked from any other page on the wiki.

--Brewt 13:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Dunno why that would be required. Why not just delete them? It's not like they have been around a long time. --Ikester 00:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Why? 1) Don't know how, having never deleted an article before. 2) Assumed they had been linked to.)

I checked and couldn't find any links from the forum, external sites, etc. (the only thing close is the Roll your own free security suite article, which HAS been linked to.

Feel free to delete.

--Brewt 02:38, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Done. BTW to delete an article just follow the "delete" tab ... or is that tab not available to you? --Ikester 09:35, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

not available. --Brewt 13:55, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion in the list?

I notice some suites missing from the list (Norton Internet Security, Avira Premium Security Suite) and wonder if that was intentional. --Brewt 13:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

The criteria for inclusion (like for the rest of the list) is basically whether i like it or not. If you are unhappy, too bad lol...

--LU 09:33, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually seriously this page is an error. Though I have being toying with the idea of doing a non-freeware list as well, but criteria is a problem yes. I don't think you staff members would be very happy if I started populating the list with my [non-freeware] favorites (which I suspect differ a lot from the mostly mainstream stuff you guys favor). And certainly there is little point in listing every security program out there (even for freeware it is getting to the point where I'm starting to get selective).

--LU 09:33, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I have no preference for any particular commercial software suites, or any particular freeware software suites.

Recommendations are welcome in both categories. The thumbs-up indicator is a useful key to knowing which software is best.

Since you are focusing on freeware suites for the time being, there is no need for separate pages.

If you or someone else decides to add commercial suites in the future, we can create a separate "commercial" page at that time.

Thoughts?

--Brewt 13:25, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

If someone decided to put together a commercial list equivalent to the current freeware list, there would be much more than a single article required. --Ikester 01:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

And LU when you generalize staff preferences are you perhaps referring to the MRP procedure? Indeed the procedure does represent a consensus of what many security experts would favour. --Ikester 01:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Well it's more like a list that people stumbled upon by accident back when the whole spyware/adware business began. I seriously doubt many "security experts" are spending their time trying security solutions looking for the best. It's just not as glamorous as other things. E.g. when was the last time one of you experts evaluated the list to drop ineffective entries? Seems to me, when something gets on the list, it stays no matter what even if it is not as effective (but it's expected that automated solutions won't work a lot right? *bias alert*). And when something gets on the list, it usually when someone ELSE not on the expert list, pushes for it...--LU 11:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

True such apps may not be leading ... er ... bleeding edge technology. Actually they favour "playing it safe". A range of folks come to CC for help and a great many are not technology savy. That's not to say that everyone should do it that way, in fact I would hope that more knowledgeable folks would try out the apps referenced in these lists. --Ikester 01:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've being thinking about this for a while, though "playing safe" does explain some of the (sometimes poor) choices made in recommendations, I have noticed certain biases among your "security experts" that lead to none-optimal outcomes. For example, what explains the prolonged recommendation (thankfully this seems to be dropped now) of "experts" of SpywareGuard despite being not updated for over 3 years? Reasonably speaking not being updated for a few months should be enough to raise warning bells. I have seen "experts" or "professionals" say with a straight face that its "heuristics" means it doesn't need to be updated. The insanity of such a defense is obvious I'm sure. And yes before some expert rushes in to tell me I'm wrong, yes it does also have a very weak browser guard function that is nevertheless of very limited usefulness (particularly considering that this is usually recommended with yet another product that overlaps in this function anyway). What are the biases? It might be a lack of interest in trying new alternatives ( , underestimation of how well automated removal methods can work (due to the understandably human need to over value the service they produce in analysis of HJT logs), and most damaging a over-respect for products (hacks actually in many case) provided by past but mostly inactive antispyware "heroes". I'm sure I just gained a lot more fans just by writing this.lol --LU 11:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT)