Shining Arcanine wrote:
I think the person who wrote comment #20 made some good points.
Choice pieces of #20 for your reading convenience:
"that source code is two years old, and wasn't effective enough back
then to stop Google from making everyone practically forget AV existed.
It's likely evolved even more since then, anyway. Remember, MS is
trying to out-do Google, they probably wouldn't succeed with old AV
code [...]
Working on
similar tech doesn't necessarily mean he's actually working with stolen
code."
Now, I'm more worried about Scoble here ...