On 2008/10/03 06:35 PM Eric Rostetter wrote: > Quoting "David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Where did I insult? (The OP was not me.) > > I didn't mean to imply you insulted them. I was pointing out that > the OP did, and that it is inappropriate to do so. Didn't mean > to imply anything about you personally.
I did not demand anything, I expressed how the current behaviour is seriously irritating to me and many other people. I also gave numerous alternate possible (and better) behaviours that would make me happy. It's a simple problem to fix, but it exists for a reason. It's not exactly something you miss easily in testing. I just want to know that reason. I don't seem to remember calling anyone an idiot or saying it's garbage, I said it's behaving in an unnecessarily unfriendly way to cause my entire mail system to break. If it's insulting to be unhappy about that, I apologise. The response should be to give me a good idea of why such an obviously bad behaviour exists in the first place and whether I can expect the situation to change. Either it can be fixed, I can be convinced of why I'm wrong, or I can use something else. If the ClamAV community/developers position is that everyone should use something else, well that's something I'm sure everyone (namely those who run the thousands/millions of servers actively using it) would like to know. What seems bogus is why someone would flippantly hand wave a problem with the arbitrary reason that the version number is still <1. Linux kernel is 2.6 does that mean it's only 2 more than stable or what? Windows kernel is version 6, does that mean it is 4 better than Linux? I'm sorry, but that sort of answer seems to be from a somewhat novice perspective. Courier is not version 1 and I'm sure they would be highly offended if you said their package should not be regarded as usable because of it. Some other meaningless and apparently unstable packages which should be avoided by that reason are inetd, ifupdown, PAM libraries, OpenSSL, Telnet, the entire USB subsystem of Linux, Aptitude, l2tpd and Grub. I guess I'm not allowed to complain if Grub magically refuses to boot my machine because it's developers decided to spell something in UK English or whatever... Lets just not entertain that excuse. Still, no one has managed to answer just *why* in a simple key-value configuration file with no option dependence has to refuse to start when it encounters an unknown option. It can happily log, or create a big spew in stdout on start-up and all would be well. Most importantly, why does it have to refuse to start when the developers _know_ that they have just deprecated that option? _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
