The windows nasty business is a very dynamic world. The frequent releases are mostly responses to these changes. Thanks for a great job ! John Phillips
I remember when FLYING was FUN and TV was FREE. On Fri, 13 May 2005, Bill Taroli wrote: > Matt Fretwell wrote: > > > Mark wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using > > > > precious time, when another upgrade may be required very shortly, > > > > requiring said time to again be used. I am just pointing out a > > > > pitfall. There is always a good excuse not to do something. It is, > > > > however, exactly that. An excuse. > > > > > > > > > > > Your pitfall could easily be turned around to say: "I understand > > > developers rather have clients test out the product in the field, > > > waiting for feedback on bugs and errors, rather than using precious > > > time > > > to do more thorough pre-release testing themselves, but this is just > > > an > > > excuse for not doing their own homework." It sure were nice if we > > > could > > > assume the absence of laziness on either side of the fence. > > > > > > > > > > Would you accept a hospital nurse telling you that they weren't going to > > set your broken arm in plaster 'because it will be healed in a week or > > two anyway, so you might as well just wait'? I think not. > > > > > > LOL. Well, depending on the kind of break they might very well say something > like that! ;-) > > > And yes, I will echo what Tomasz said in this regard. These > > gentleman|lady admins are paid to keep these systems in prime working > > condition, inclusive of updates for new threats or security exploits. > > Period. That is why they are called (I.T|Network) Administrators. > > > > 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? > _______________________________________________ > http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html > > _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
