X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Michael Kairys" Subject: Re: BitDefender again Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:04:19 -0400 Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <20090826013626 DOT GC9672 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4A9521B7 DOT 2030806 AT gmail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com > But can anyone say more about Dave Korn's comment that it could "horribly > frag your heap and bork > your maximum allocatable memory limit"? Can I test this somehow? Guess I'll just go with it then... :) In the interim I've tried out a few other "leading" AV products: Avria, Nod32, and Kaspersky, and I must say BitDefender is still my first choice. My criteria are pretty simplistic though: score well in at least two independent tests and otherwise be as invisible and unobtrusive as possible. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple