> >> Then that is their choice and when it fails, they can bitch to the > >> developers of that system and switch to another vendor ....... > > > > Apart the fact that open software is not yet-another-vendor. It is a > > culture. > > > > No, ClamAV is a VENDOR that happens to be part of the open software > community.
So ClamAV should obey to the rules governing the open-software community. One is that everybody is free to run it own copy of the software, in whichever shape he/she likes it. > There have been numerous pieces of software that I have used over the > years that have died on the vine and no longer suitable for new > systems. Do I rant at them that they MUST provide me with a new > version, no, I deal with it. Either building my own from sources or > moving on to a new piece of software..... This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of proactively breaking running systems. Jim, you keep adding apples and pears together. Aren't you starting feeling the importance of what the ClamAV team wanted and let happen? > > The way the clamav team managed this case hits the open software > > community > > as a whole, being the ClamAV project a well-known member of that > > community. > > Yes, but not necessarily in a negative way...... One of the MAJOR > problems with Microsoft software is their insane insistence on > backwards compatibility. Sometimes it does not make sense to do so and > you just have to bite the bullet and let people know it will not work. > In Microsoft's case they simply fail to let people know...... in > addition to breaking it. This is a good point of view which I can easily endorse. But we are still speaking of stopping working systems. We are not speaking about introducing a backward incompatibility. Giampaolo _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
