This LUSERS keeps mentioning his "clients". Does anyone believe for a
half second that this a-wipe has *any* clients who would put up with
his psychotic nonsense? The true size of his ego has to be somewhere
around the size of a pinhead which needs constant inflating in almost
every single one of his posts.
He's a LUSER who LIES! He ALWAYS LIES!
ALWAYS! ALWAYS! ALWAYS!
I think these two posts show that his leaving MBAM was on the worst of
terms.
He has been leading up to these posts for the last few months. His
hate and anger have finally broken through in regard to MBAM.
I think these two posts show that his leaving MBAM was on the worst of
terms.
He has been leading up to these posts for the last few months. His
hate and anger have finally broken through in regard to MBAM.
He HATES the success of others while his vaunted, self proclaimed I.Q.
of 180 doesn't seem to be able to furnish him more than a bare
existence. He will probably now pass gas in explaining to us that
MBAM, maybe not in its entirety, but certainly the basic coding and
idea of it was really his. Pathetic.
All Message-IDs can be found with the complete post at:
http://al.howardknight.net/
From: Dustin
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: MBAM 2.0.3 RC1
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:58:16 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Diesel
Lines: 94
Message-ID:
References:
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:58:16 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="82c950c44c1460224ed0debd4bb2fb7e";
logging-data="13742"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OdVMGjMgDa/GJMSPRi6zG3ujKo6wLTEQ="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Face:
")a1c1@v4695TOAAGDV"2*Q?\^40C9=M@Fw'c:YhY])Sb=T`-ev$|P|4Kff_BGW@l:=$o}Ivdx{blP|
(XC-zAtj&8NNuo3Ie[v{NUwj
U9Bf>sb*ylTx=^QUWZ|z\=w>zyeQ=2pWPz5M%]9-UrUud}
+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zrQF7IgeIQRbEyd454tP2DMwL3U=
X-Received-Bytes: 5492
X-Received-Body-CRC: 548258953
"David H. Lipman"
news:E9qdnQPA88QIiQXJnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com Mon, 22 Dec 2014
12:54:47 GMT in alt.privacy.spyware, wrote the following message:
> From: "Dustin"
>
>> "David H. Lipman"
>> news:CYmdnXD3CqC9sKHJnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com Mon, 13 Oct
>> 2014 19:51:02 GMT in alt.privacy.spyware, wrote the following
>> message:
>>
>>> From: "FredW"
>>>
>>>> Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.3 Release Candidate 1 is now
>>>> available for testing.
>>>> https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/158226-malwareby
>>>> te s-anti-malware-203-release-candidate-1/
>>>>
>>>> download:
>>>> https://malwarebytes.app.box.com/s/2k4m6x50scjsiwm0mcrn
>>>>
>>>> forum Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.3 Beta Test:
>>>> https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/forum/154-malwarebytes
>>>> -a nti-malware-203-beta-test/
>>>>
>>> Beta cycle is too bloody short and MBAM v2.03 RC was released as
>>> a new update.
>>
>> Careful. I know this is an old post, but the advice is still
>> prudent. You want to choose carefully how you phrase advice
>> concerning Malwarebytes. I've been labeled a malwarebytes basher
>> as a result of voicing my disagreement with some aspects of their
>> online help and my opinions concerning how fast new versions are
>> being released that really shouldn't have been.
>>
>> I guess when I see canned advice hose somebodies system, and a
>> forum administrator passing the buck I should keep my mouth shut
>> and pretend nothing 'bad' happened. As well as various revisions
>> to the v2.0x series which shouldn't have been made available so
>> fast to the public in the first place, not with the issues they're
>> *still* ironing out.
>>
>> v1.75 worked for blind persons, it performed updates without
>> having to be constantly reinstalled and messed with, and despite
>> the issues it did have, once the resident module loaded, it
>> usually remained online without crashing out or becoming inactive
>> without another mbam clean, reload session.
>>
>> v2.0x and counting are impossible to navigate with blind
>> assistance programs, are not stable, crash often, won't take
>> updates (out of the blue), won't remain resident, often require a
>> thorough mbam clean procedure then a reload, and then it'll work
>> for a few days again, mebbe.
>>
>> These are all known facts, well documented, but to mention them as
>> I have, is considered 'malwarebytes bashing' by some.
>>
>> For those who want to know what I recommend when mbam won't do the
>> job, or I don't trust the later versions, it's sas. Without a
>> doubt.
>>
>> SAS is a top notch antimalware program that's better supported and
>> lately, more reliable than mbam. I hope the company gets back on
>> track and continues creating a good antimalware application. Mbam
>> v2.0x series, sadly, isn't it. They *had* a great app. They've
>> nearly destroyed it.
>>
>
> I think there is a January updated release.
> It *MAY* be the version to move from v1.75.x to.
Promises promises. :)
I do hope things get back on track, before too many more systems get
hosed, or more people become irate to the point where they'll *never*
load the program again. On their own machines or others.
I've had a few clients demand that v1.75 remains for the time being, and
a couple of others who want nothing more to do with the program. They
chose to purchase a license and upgraded from v1.75; problems ever
since...I did try to tell them to stick with v1.75 and run the free
version for the time being. I disabled check for program updates when
doing an update, so they manually acquired the newer installers and
ignored my advice. My invoice reflected that in the bill. Happily, both
of them did pay me without any hassle. They knew they messed up.. hehe.
I've also had clients become very upset over malwarebytes installations
on their computers. When MBAM released the last bad definitions update,
I had fourteen systems go down as a result... Good thing I'm a firm
believer in imaging. It could have been much worse.
--
My truck does not leak. It's just marking its territory!
===============
From: Dustin
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: MBAM 2.0.3 RC1
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:43:50 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Diesel
Lines: 123
Message-ID:
References:
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:43:50 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="82c950c44c1460224ed0debd4bb2fb7e";
logging-data="30978"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wGAldfPap+UdneSEEcF4O45vpEB1SZH0="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Face:
")a1c1@v4695TOAAGDV"2*Q?\^40C9=M@Fw'c:YhY])Sb=T`-ev$|P|4Kff_BGW@l:=$o}Ivdx{blP|
(XC-zAtj&8NNuo3Ie[v{NUwj
U9Bf>sb*ylTx=^QUWZ|z\=w>zyeQ=2pWPz5M%]9-UrUud}
+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q8X8HTYuSCFycDs7283YmOjAP6c=
X-Received-Bytes: 6990
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3568195019
"David H. Lipman"
news:qu-dndFqeLYGxwXJnZ2dnUU7-bWdnZ2d@giganews.com Mon, 22 Dec 2014
17:53:33 GMT in alt.privacy.spyware, wrote the following message:
> From: "Dustin"
>
>> "David H. Lipman"
>> news:E9qdnQPA88QIiQXJnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com Mon, 22 Dec
>> 2014 12:54:47 GMT in alt.privacy.spyware, wrote the following
>> message:
>>
>>> From: "Dustin"
>>>
>>>> "David H. Lipman"
>>>> news:CYmdnXD3CqC9sKHJnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com Mon, 13 Oct
>>>> 2014 19:51:02 GMT in alt.privacy.spyware, wrote the following
>>>> message:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "FredW"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.3 Release Candidate 1 is now
>>>>>> available for testing.
>>>>>> https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/158226-malware
>>>>>> by te s-anti-malware-203-release-candidate-1/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> download:
>>>>>> https://malwarebytes.app.box.com/s/2k4m6x50scjsiwm0mcrn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> forum Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.3 Beta Test:
>>>>>> https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/forum/154-malwarebyt
>>>>>> es -a nti-malware-203-beta-test/
>>>>>>
>>>>> Beta cycle is too bloody short and MBAM v2.03 RC was released
>>>>> as a new update.
>>>>
>>>> Careful. I know this is an old post, but the advice is still
>>>> prudent. You want to choose carefully how you phrase advice
>>>> concerning Malwarebytes. I've been labeled a malwarebytes basher
>>>> as a result of voicing my disagreement with some aspects of
>>>> their online help and my opinions concerning how fast new
>>>> versions are being released that really shouldn't have been.
>>>>
>>>> I guess when I see canned advice hose somebodies system, and a
>>>> forum administrator passing the buck I should keep my mouth shut
>>>> and pretend nothing 'bad' happened. As well as various revisions
>>>> to the v2.0x series which shouldn't have been made available so
>>>> fast to the public in the first place, not with the issues
>>>> they're *still* ironing out.
>>>>
>>>> v1.75 worked for blind persons, it performed updates without
>>>> having to be constantly reinstalled and messed with, and despite
>>>> the issues it did have, once the resident module loaded, it
>>>> usually remained online without crashing out or becoming
>>>> inactive without another mbam clean, reload session.
>>>>
>>>> v2.0x and counting are impossible to navigate with blind
>>>> assistance programs, are not stable, crash often, won't take
>>>> updates (out of the blue), won't remain resident, often require
>>>> a thorough mbam clean procedure then a reload, and then it'll
>>>> work for a few days again, mebbe.
>>>>
>>>> These are all known facts, well documented, but to mention them
>>>> as I have, is considered 'malwarebytes bashing' by some.
>>>>
>>>> For those who want to know what I recommend when mbam won't do
>>>> the job, or I don't trust the later versions, it's sas. Without
>>>> a doubt.
>>>>
>>>> SAS is a top notch antimalware program that's better supported
>>>> and lately, more reliable than mbam. I hope the company gets
>>>> back on track and continues creating a good antimalware
>>>> application. Mbam v2.0x series, sadly, isn't it. They *had* a
>>>> great app. They've nearly destroyed it.
>>>>
>>> I think there is a January updated release.
>>> It *MAY* be the version to move from v1.75.x to.
>>
>> Promises promises. :)
>> I do hope things get back on track, before too many more systems
>> get hosed, or more people become irate to the point where they'll
>> *never* load the program again. On their own machines or others.
>>
>> I've had a few clients demand that v1.75 remains for the time
>> being, and a couple of others who want nothing more to do with the
>> program. They chose to purchase a license and upgraded from v1.75;
>> problems ever since...I did try to tell them to stick with v1.75
>> and run the free version for the time being. I disabled check for
>> program updates when doing an update, so they manually acquired
>> the newer installers and ignored my advice. My invoice reflected
>> that in the bill. Happily, both of them did pay me without any
>> hassle. They knew they messed up.. hehe.
>>
>> I've also had clients become very upset over malwarebytes
>> installations on their computers. When MBAM released the last bad
>> definitions update, I had fourteen systems go down as a result...
>> Good thing I'm a firm believer in imaging. It could have been much
>> worse.
>>
>
> v1.75 goes EoL around the end of March/April 2015.
I expected as much. I've already started rolling out SAS as a fine
replacement. When v1.75 officially loses support and can no longer get
updates, I'll finish migrating all of my clients to sas.
> After that, signatures won't be compatible with that version of
> software.
Well, as I said, the way things have been going with the company and
their flagship product, I'm not sure i'm really losing out on anything
here. The internals between v1.75 and v2.0.4 aren't significantly
different enough to warrant dropping v1.75. No, this is more of a push
to force you into the v2.0x series than it actually is about
compatability.
This might be the last straw for some people. Perhaps this is what
will cause them to fail for the last time. I can't really say as I'd
miss the program or what's left of the new Malwarebytes that much.
--
My truck does not leak. It's just marking its territory!
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)
|