>I do too, but only to a point. Automated virus scanners reduce but do
>not eliminate the risk of infection from viruses.
>
>However, virus scanners are NOT a solution. They are a band-aid to
>aleviate the symptoms of the problem. The problem is a lack of
>protection in the software (OS and application) itself. Proper
>protection models would be a solution.
I agree, as I state in one of my previous posts, real OS security would
resolve a large portion of this, and Windows just doesn't have it, nor do I
expect it will in the foreseeable future. Until then, we have to apply
whatever band aids keep us up and running.
>User education is also a problem. Everybody believes that you can
>simply use software with no training, even though every other
>significant endeavour they might do (driving, operating equipment,
>making sales calls for a company, etc.) requires a significant level of
>instruction.
I understand that sentiment, and even agree to an extent, but the kind of
time and money necessary for "proper" training is hard to come by (at least
where I've worked). When you add to it an ignorant user base and new
software being rolled out almost monthly, it becomes almost impossible to
fully train some people. I've had some users that, in training sessions,
picked up the concepts and information as fast as we could feed it to them,
and others whose hands you had to hold though the whole process, and they
still didn't really "get it". You can't just get rid of these people, as
many of them were essential to the various departments for which the work,
and most were exceptionally talented in their particular field. They just
were not raised with computers. This will probably only get better though
as the workforce transitions to the children and young adults who have grown
up with them and technology progresses. So, we do the best with the people
and resources we have. Virus scanners are just another tool to facilitate
this.
