> > If nobody had to turn off freshclam, why clamscan had to stop > working? > > Have you actually been reading and comprehending what has been stated > in this thread?
Yes, I did. Did you? If you know, just tell me why. > > In this thread I'm seeing a lot of people blaming the sysadmin. Is it > > crowded by sysadmins who like to show they are much more competent > > than their colleagues? > > Who should I blame, my barber? The SA has primary responsibility for > his/her system. It would be ludicrous to attempt to pass the blame onto > someone else. The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop working. Not even Microsoft do this. And an inexistent SA has to be blamed for this? It maybe, but because it trusted the ClamAV project, not because he/she didn't manage something that he/she didn't have to... But imagine that the SA is a horrible and ugly person, who takes the money and don't care to give a decent work in return. Even in that case the ClamAV team should have refrained from stopping that working system. I can't understand why you have difficulties in understanding this. One can't simply go and turn stuff off at will. > > Why nobody from the ClamAV team likes to explain to *users* why they > > decided to stop their own working clamscan, when there were tons of > > suitable alternatives? > > They have explained it, you just choose to not listen or accept their > explanation. Nono. They haven't. There is no single work about the rationale which drove to the 0.96 case. I mean, a technical reason which says that the way this was handled was the only feasible way to do it. It had been said this was to alleviate the servers load (play with dns, then!), it had been said that the ClamAV team don't owe anything to its users. It had been a lot of things against bad sysadmins as opposed to good ones. All, but the rationale. > > Nobody here gave a serious rationale about it. The way "sysadmins" > are > > attacked here, seems to me that the 0.96 case has nothing to do with > > open software, but instead with marketing. > > Who has been attacked? Certainly not competent SAs. Conversely, SAs who > would rather procrastinate than keep their systems up-to-date are > openly > criticizing the ClamAV team for a decision that was theirs to make. In > today's culture, blaming others for our mistakes does seem to be the > norm. Oh, came on. Proactively shutting down software is not something like "you knew that could happen"... > > So please, the genius in the management who came out with this smart > > idea may please came out and explain to us the why? Many people > > already know the when... > > They all ready have explained their reasoning. How many times must they > reiterate it before you comprehend what they are saying? It has come to > the point now that all you are doing is "beating a dead horse." Do, you mean management is behind this? Giampaolo _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
