This is becoming worst than the OOP saga.
A.D. wrote: Dear Fred, can't you change the code parts of purebasic which cause the false alarms? At least i would like to know which parts of your wonderful language are affected ?
I don't see why Fred should answer for something wrong yelled by a stupid antivirus or worse yet change something in his code just to make an antivirus happy. Not only this would be wrong, it would also be temporary, do you realize that ?
What I find amazing is that a problem to be fixed does not exist to start with.
It is wrongly (this is the keyword, WRONGLY) reported like a problem by a software with a staggering high failure rate written by people with no clue or no real interest beyond an economic one, explicitly for people bred to accept it like a real problem and willing to pressure other people who has nothing to do with it in "doing something about it".
That's pretty absurd. Write to the people making this crap and ask them to explain to their ignorant users how their software work, on their own websites and in the manual, what its limitation are, and pretend from them to use the appropriate wording when reporting something.
If I start to describe you like a "psychotic serial killer, thief and bank robber" every time I meet a person you know, does it sound logical to you:
1) to go to each of these persons and reassure them, explaining why you are such a good human being and asking them to trust you and asking me (politely) to kindly take that back at my earliest convenience
2) to ignore me and let the persons who does believe what I told them, without ANY KIND OF PROOF, to go to hell
3) to hit me in the face for spreading unsubstantiated lies and let the persons who does believe what I told them, without ANY KIND OF PROOF, to go to hell
4) to take legal action against me for slander and let the persons who does believe what I told them, without ANY KIND OF PROOF, to go to hell
?
To me just 2, 3 and 4 sounds good. And yet the majority of people seems to find perfectly reasonable the first choice.
And to repeat this process indefinitely with different actors.
An AV it's just a tool. It was a fairly precise tool. Now it's generally a sloppy tool. Let's treat it appropriately and investigate its claims without believe in it blindly.
Also real viruses are practically extincted today, malware distributed one to one, directly without the need of an innocent infected host and without a previous history are the real problem.
A.D. wrote:I'm gonna disable my heuristic scanning now for real...maybe this feature should be disabled by default in the av-softwares.
A classical rigid fingerprint based AV is useless against this, so disabling the heuristic part of an AV it's like turning it off without the advantages of not having it on your system.
