> > I see you're quite far from it at the moment, since you are trying to > > drive people to think that complains are only from bad sysadms. I > > can't of course speak for others, but I'm complaining because of the > > bad light in which the ClamAV team put open-software with the 0.96 > > case. > > To paraphrase your statement that you are only complaining because of > this unproven accusation that ClamAV is somehow putting FOSS in peril, > "When someone says its not the money but the principal, you can bet > your bottom dollar it is the money." In other words, you are trying to > move off center and refocus on alleged damage that the ClamAV > action(s) have caused.
In other words, you've fear. You're are in the management, right? Typical. > Actually, I take the opposite stance. Team > ClamAV has taken a bold move forward. Right toward the trashcan. > By refusing to back port every > conceivable enhancement to their product, they will be able to focus on > producing a more robust product. They didn't do this. I mean, your staff didn't do this. Your staff had 6 months to implement a very simple and inexpensive solution to workaround all the troubles your "bold move" could do to their users. > Microsoft spent billions of dollars > back porting every conceivable improvement to their system just to > placate the winny-weaners (you know the type) that expect everyone to > cater to their demands. This lead to a less than robust Internet > Explorer offering. Now that they have openly stated that the unreleased > IE9 will not work on WinXP, a ten year old OS, those same cry-babies > are at it again. IE isn't less robust because it runs on XP instead of in some other environment. It is less robust because it have to deal with all that silly ways Microsoft followed in badly implementing W3C standards. The OS is less than an issue in robustness. It may be in security, but a robust IE implementation would be safe even on a W2k. So, what are you saying. That you're a good sysadm because you run W7? Or because you own a Mac? It is a silly reasoning. > Maybe you and them should get together and form a fan club. That is what makes me think you're in the management: you keep mudding. > > My systems, Jerry, work fine, thank you. But I had a couple of phone > > calls from some friend sysadmins (yes, I have friends colleagues. Do > > you?) who were in trouble due to ClamAV. > > My systems are functioning perfectly. Then again, I don't > procrastinate, although I have spend way to much time today on this > chat line. Of course, since none of my systems are down due to a > catastrophic AV failure, I really don't have a whole lot to do at > present. See? So is me. > > Open software shouldn't behave this way. The ClamAV team should have > > implemented ways to not screw old installation while going for its > > own way. There were feasible ways to do this, but they chose not to > > follow them. Period. > > They choose to do it in a manner that was most efficient for them. By > the way, how much did you pay for your ClamAV license? Better yet, when > ClamAV asked for public input months ago on the planned change, what > did > you contribute to the party? Right, it is a good tactic to take some other observation and use it to keep mudding. > I am willing to be nothing. You are like a > moron who doesn't vote and then bitches because the candidate they > wanted did not get elected. Which is still allowed, isn't it? _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
