Talk:Gen Digital

Financials

The current financial numbers are completely wrong. Someone should look up the numbers for FY2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.188.54 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Someone should put on the main page that Symantec's security products are among some of the world's worst software. In General they: Slow down a computer system dramatically. Offer sub standard detection of threats. Are ludicrously easy to disable. Can not be cleanly removed because they beleive they OWN your PC and can do whatever they want. Cost way more than they are worth. Lack general quality, as more money is spent on advertising, legal matters and developing anti-piracy systems than on actually developing the main purpose of the software itself. Should be avoided at all costs.

Norton works for me, and of course, here is not the place to share user opinions. TechOutsider (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

I respectfully assert that discussion pages ARE the place to share user opinions. Of course, all of the above could probably be sourced from authoritative sources. FYI, the viability of Symantec seems to be in question with Microsoft's decision to make anti-malware software freely availeble, halfway through 2009. BFBbrown (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:TALKPAGE: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views nor should they be used as User pages." FYI. DP76764 (Talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Corporate edition

What about Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition? You didn't list it in the products as well as not having an article for it. 70.111.224.253 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Usually, people call it "Enterprise Norton", but I think it should be listed and have it's own article, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OtherPerson (talk • contribs) 04:12, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, esp. since the Enterprise client is far different in terms of resource usage and interface. If you didn't know they were made by the same company, you wouldn't notice. 128.220.235.148 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IRS and Symantec

Apparently, the IRS is charging Symantec close to 1 Billion USD for issues relateing to the VERITAS takeover or buyout. Check this slashdot article. [1] I think a section on this would be helpful and appropriate. zorkerz 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercial or not commercial?

The link to "ZDnet preUK Security Operations Centre (SOC) bunker" is, from our perspective, is a commercial link. As certified Symantec engineers and able to assist and advise people on Symantec I added our link yesterday. If links to certified Symantec engineer sites can not be included then only Symantec should appear here. As AV engineers we are in a position to know all AV products from actual experience in many computing environments. We have a lot of information to help people with Symantec that Symantec does not publish. Actual experience and solutions that can easily be interpeted as "reviews or "news". And our links to purchase these products are the same as the ads on ZDnet. They are commercial links. ZDnet is a news publisher site. We consider the information available on news sites to be at the very least equally useful to the interested reader. All three web site types: news, reviews and certified engineer web sites are commercial so if one is here they all have to be here. Trotline trotline 10:00 am est

Commercial links are allowed in Wikipedia, although I sometimes use the phrase "commercial link" to avoid hurting any feelings with the word "spam" when reverting edits that don't add anything to an article. The site you removed, news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39237560,00.htm, is a link to a ZDnet magazine article subtitled "Inside Symantec's nuclear bunker", about Symantec's test lab. Symantec is the subject of this article, why on earth would you remove such a link? Next, I don't know much about the software business, but I'd be willing to bet Symantec has more than one "Partner" such as yourself, why should your link be here, or anywhere in Wikipedia? Take a look at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 3, "Links mainly intended to promote a website".

Wikipedia needs content, not links. I'm sure your organization has a lot of knowledge to contribute. For starters on how to contribute, look at item 6 Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. --CliffC 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully I submit that commercial links is another term for "links mainly intended to promote a website". The ZDnet article is a commercial site offering content to get you to view relevant ads. The same information can be found on Symantec's web site. Symantec's web site is tens of thousands of pages deep and they have many press releases such as the one on ZDnet. As Symantec Partners we receive all the press releases and the Lab is one of them. If their article is not primarily posted to get you to purchase from their advertisers then I would like to know how they make money.

Yes there are many Symantec partners. We are the number one Symantec Partner in Norton sales volume. Many partners have valuable insights into Symantec. These insights are much more useful that the article on the ZDnet site.

Since you are self defined as "I don't know much about the software business" I suggest you lend some validity to the opinions of people who do have that experience. For example, my computer experience is 30 years. Our staff of certified AV specialists have no less than 10 years each.

I am removing the ZDnet link again since it opens the door for many other commercial links parading as "news sources" who are simple affiliate marketers. If you would like to continue to debate the issue I would appreciate you providing some facts as to how the ZDnet article is more valid than other press release duplicating sites that post content to get you to view relevant ads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trotline (talk • contribs) 17:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

And next, another editor will revert it back and then you will have to abide by the three revert rule. The link's been there for some considerable time, adds useful, NPOV colour to the articel, and is from a notable source ... richi 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Adjusted some indentations above for readability)

I've responded to some of this over in Talk:Antivirus software#External links. --CliffC 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with all links except the one to symantec.com being removed. The original editor might have been trying to be pointy, but a link like the ZDnet one would probably be best used in the context of a reference in the text itself. From an editorial perspective, if nothing else. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By reading the first sentence of Chairboy's response it seems to be saying he is fine with all links being removed except Symantec's. (Chairboy please clarify if I have it wrong.) Unfortunately all I can assume from the constant restoring of the commercial link is that the people constantly restoring it do not want to discuss the validity of linking to one commercial site and banning all others. (Which would be an obvious breach of NPOV) Due to that it appears the folks restoring the links have a financial interest in the links. This looks like the issue needs to be escalated. Does anyone else want to shed some light on the issue?Trotline 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have phrased it more clearly. The only link that makes sense that I've seen recently is the one to www.symantec.com. The ZDNet article, while interesting, seems better as a reference to something in the article, not a stand-alone link. The nortons.com and other reseller links need not be in the article, and if folks keep restoring it, some type of action might be needed as using Wikipedia as an advertising medium is contraindicated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, thank you for responding. I agree with what you said. To clarify, the nortons.com link is not the issue in this discussion. That site is what is called a "thin affiliate" and you are right it is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT about. However there are many antivirus sites that are full of specific information about the subject written by AV specialists and they are, at the very least, just as valid as ZDnet article written by journalists from a Symantec press release. And they are just as valid as the self proclaimed "unbiased comparison site". The issue I would like to remain on task with is this..."Assuming both sites have relevant information; should one link be allowed to one commercial site and all others banned?" Now, if the folks in this discussion would like to discuss this I am all ears. Respectfully, Trotline 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Again adjusted indentation for readability)

You say "...Due to that it appears the folks restoring the links have a financial interest in the links" – this is particularly absurd coming from an editor with a flaming WP:COI problem that he doesn't want to address. I too am okay with the ZDnet link being removed, let's leave it out; my objection is to your original removal of it based on the reasoning "if I can't have a link, nobody can have a link". --CliffC 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisim

Could someone add a "Criticisims" section to this article? Specifically, criticisims as to 1. Symantec's customer unfriendly and often very costly customer service. 2. "Norton" products are designed in such a way as to make it difficult for an average user to allow exceptions. 3. Norton Internet Security acts much like the malware it is supposed to detect and remove. It embeds itself into the registry of the PC and is not completely removed by its own uninstall program. The company was forced by lawsuits to offer a supplementary program to completely remove it. 4. Allegations that the 'Norton' family of products actively prevent silmutaneous use of a rival anti-virus software on a PC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you could cite a reputable source, then you can add that personally to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could also add a a mention of the famous NETBULA vs. SYMANTEC case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In certain cases, Norton Security Scan has caused Blue Screen forcing people to reboot and lose important work. Any attempt to contact Symantec has failed. It is therefore considered malicious software, and its engineers people with no regards for ethics and law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.34.88 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge Rtvscan

Rtvscan is a short article that is unlikely to expand. Is anyone opposed to merging it into this page? DiggyG (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Oppose. This is an article about the company. That info should be merged to Norton Antivirus, which is about that product. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, new merge discussion is at the Norton AntiVirus talk page: Talk:Norton_AntiVirus#Merge_Rtvscan. DiggyG (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Last Major Release

The last major release is now norton internet security/antivirus 2009. Additionally, N360 v2 does not include the weak password checking feature of V1, hence the statment that v2 contains all the features of v1 in incorrect.

Need for Accuracy and Objectivity

I'm going to fix the missing early history, there's a lot missing. I wrote some of the early third party software Symantec marketed through the Turner Hall Publishing Division. There is also a lot of missing details about how they mostly bought and rebranded products and did not actually develop all that much in-house.

Let's stop the noise about adding criticisms into the article this is supposed to be objective and factual and neutrality is paramount in any article. TW Burger (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Noise about criticism? Take a look at this gem: "The combination of VeriSign’s security products, services and recognition as the most trusted brand online and Symantec’s leading security solutions and widespread distribution will enable Symantec to deliver on its vision of a world where people have simple and secure access to their information from anywhere." -- what the hell is that? Here we have a somewhat sleazy company bought by the biggest snake-oil peddler of the whole IT, and that press release for dumber managers is somehow acceptable but valid criticism is not... KiloByte (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you say that name? I'm guessing either like "Simon-Tek" or like "Semantic". Any hints? --79.218.107.252 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its pronounced Se-man-tec. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDka7F7lOTE&feature=related at about 2:30 sec. --2.122.141.132 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)