On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 18:20, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:11 -0700, Bill Taroli wrote: > > Matt Fretwell wrote: > > > I completely agree with your point. But taken from a different > > perspective, this may be one reason to justify that such a product not > > be used in production IT environments. The point should *not* be missed > > that something so crucial to one's infrastructure -- that you would of > > course want to keep up to date -- should *require* updating on a weekly > > basis to solve *software* issues. Obviously, keeping signatures up to > > date is extremely important. But if software is so buggy that regular > > code upgrades are required, one really needs to start wondering why > > that's the case... is it for functionality enhancements, or due to quality? > > Even commercial AV products load new engines - and sometimes re-install > themselves - fairly frequently. Seems every time I plug in my windows > box I'm getting a new engine update from Symantec - which tells you how > often I run windows ;-) > > but the 0.84 - 0.85 was definitely a bug-fix. For 0.83 there was an rc > release series, but none for 0.84.
There were two RCs for 0.84. > And 0.84 probably would not have > been needed had more people ran 0.83 rc2 and found the bugs beforehand. -Nigel _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
