Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1101012" data-attributes="member: 114717">Comodo was developed to be a completely free software. That means the true cost to the consumer is $0 and its development is not subsidized by paying subscribers.The product owner does not want to spend any more money on it. He already subsidizes the product at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year out of his own pocket. Plus he never had any intention of publishing Comodo to derive a profit from it. If he wanted to he certainly could, and spend millions fixing bugs that freeloaders just demand be fixed.Why would anyone throw money at a free product to make it better because people complain about bugs? Who would do that?Kaspersky Free is the paid version with features disabled. All the people that pay the annual subscription subsidize all the freeloaders that are too cheap to pay for a license. More importantly, the free versions are purpose-built to entice people to purchase a license. Comodo never operated on that model. That is why it was built in the first place - to not do what every other security software publisher does.If you come to me and ask for a cheap mode of transportation, I am going to offer you a 20 year old rusty bicycle with a torn seat and a front wheel that wobbles. Don&#039;t like it? Then walk.The bicycle still works fine. That it is rusty and has problems is irrelevant. Want cheap and free - you get whatever someone is willing to give you. Either you accept it or you do not. You do not have to use it.With all the complaints about Comodo, you don&#039;t see anybody running to MalwareTips complaining that they were infected with Comodo installed. You experience bugs? So what? Who cares? Those are your troubles. Figure it out. This is information security. That&#039;s what resourceful people do. They don&#039;t give up and they figure it out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1101012, member: 114717"] Comodo was developed to be a completely free software. That means the true cost to the consumer is $0 and its development is not subsidized by paying subscribers. The product owner does not want to spend any more money on it. He already subsidizes the product at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year out of his own pocket. Plus he never had any intention of publishing Comodo to derive a profit from it. If he wanted to he certainly could, and spend millions fixing bugs that freeloaders just demand be fixed. Why would anyone throw money at a free product to make it better because people complain about bugs? Who would do that? Kaspersky Free is the paid version with features disabled. All the people that pay the annual subscription subsidize all the freeloaders that are too cheap to pay for a license. More importantly, the free versions are purpose-built to entice people to purchase a license. Comodo never operated on that model. That is why it was built in the first place - [B]to [U]not[/U] do what every other security software publisher does.[/B] If you come to me and ask for a cheap mode of transportation, I am going to offer you a 20 year old rusty bicycle with a torn seat and a front wheel that wobbles. Don't like it? Then walk.The bicycle still works fine. That it is rusty and has problems is irrelevant. Want cheap and free - you get whatever someone is willing to give you. Either you accept it or you do not. You do not have to use it. With all the complaints about Comodo, you don't see anybody running to MalwareTips complaining that they were infected with Comodo installed. You experience bugs? So what? Who cares? Those are your troubles. Figure it out. This is information security. That's what resourceful people do. They don't give up and they figure it out. [/QUOTE]

Verification