> It isn't the software per se that is the problem, it is the virus > database subscription... If you want to maintain your own virus > database, you can run as old a version of clamav software as you want. > > Asking clamav to support definitions for old versions is like asking > other vendors to keep supplying updates for old versions. At some > point] > they stop providing updates. At some point, clamav stops providing > updates. > If you don't want the updates, you can keep using the software, in both > cases.
ClamAV didn't have to provide any update for old systems. They could code in the 0.96 version a new DNS entry to check for updates (say, current.cvd1), and remove the old ones (current.cvd) from the zones. The crappy clamav wouldn't get updated anymore and wouldn't load the server (apart for the dns request). But they would be still running and nobody would be complaining (at least, not at same time...). > > This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of > proactively > > breaking running systems. > > By using their database updates, you agree to their terms... This is > nothing > to do with the software. If it broke anything but the clamav software, > that is really your fault, not theirs. We are not in a court. It is not a matter of repaying damages. It is a matter of betrayed trust. > > 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. > > Actually, we are talking about both (breaking working clamav services > because of a backward incompatibility with new signatures). You can > avoid > it by not using their new signatures, or by upgrading your clamav > software. > Your choice. Which isn't that bad. To have a choice, I mean... _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
