* Török Edwin wrote: > but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than > actually detecting malware. >
0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working. I will concede that its not the best solution, but its better than no solution. My opinion on reasonable backwards compatibility ( probably not worth much ) 2-3 years of backwards compatibility sounds right. 2 years would put us back to 0.94x 3 years would put us back to 0.92x A flag day now and then (0.94.x DB issue) is OK, but not as a regularly scheduled event. Whats the point of putting the latest Clamav on a system when the Dev team is going to break it in a matter of months. If I wanted that experience I'd use MS products exclusively. :-) I do appreciate the efforts of the ClamAV Team in providing a viable Open Source AV Solution. But as I've said before, the treatment of the user base leaves somewhat to be desired. -- Sincerely, Nathan Gibbs Systems Administrator Christ Media http://www.cmpublishers.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
