> And you are free to do so, just as the developers are free to release
> signatures that do not work with older versions. That is ALL that
> happened. In doing so, clamd fails to be able to properly read the
> database and fails.
Things are a bit more complex, because I see the problem of long si
> > This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
> proactively
> > breaking running systems.
>
> Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
> it
> broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obscure
> malformatted hexstring error.
Wasn't
Jerry wrote:
> Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion
that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than upgrade
it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do exactly
that sort of thing - and this issue with clamav getting the kill
switch ca
> > I'm know a bit uncomfortable with the idea that the ClamAV team can
> so
> > easily "unplug the wire". When there are other ways to do the same
> with few
> > more effort, if at all, too.
>
> So am I. And I'm a little uncomfortable that I didn't suggest other
> ways to accomplish this when th
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >> The owner of the box. They may not be qualified to manage the
> machine,
> >> but computers don't plug themselves into the network-- every machine
> >> belongs to someone who pays for electrical power and network
> >> connectivity.
> >
On 4/16/2010 7:08 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
proactively
breaking running systems.
Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
it
broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obscure
mal
> Just one remark: Anyone Ran Linux on their PlayStation lately?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Removal_of_.22Other_OS.22_su
> pport_with_firmware_v3.21
Aaah, see? This is how things go with commercial products. This to the
various iPad/iPhone etc. It is the same or even worse.
P
On 04/16/2010 10:06 PM, Jerry wrote:
>
> That is one of the things I like about the FreeBSD ports system. The
> port maintainer doesn't arbitrarily change anything once the application
> is ported. If there is a change in the port, it is prominently noted in
> the port's UPDATING file.
>
>
You r
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Pointing out that they are wrong, why they are wrong, and how they
should
do things instead _IS_ helping them. That is the way people work,
that
is the way people learn, that is how wrong situations get corrected.
The only "wrong sit
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>>> What if your PS3 stops working because the maker thinks it is a too-old
>>> model to still go?
>>
>> A fine question. Let's suppose a certain old PS3 model has a serious
>> manufacturing defect, such that it can overheat and catch fire.
> > An open-source project is not supposed to change rules at will. The
> > license
> > itself of open source software is often oriented toward this view,
> > such that
> > it guarantees people to keep using software they already got, even
> > when the
> > project becomes a completely commercial on
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop
working.
I would not describe what they did that way.
Older versions of clamd were going to crash on signatures that newer
versions would accept, and the devs have been p
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop
working.
Not even Microsoft do this.
I can't tell you how many support calls I've received over the years
with people saying "my Internet stopped working" and it was due
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
NOBODY, BUT NOBODY, HAS THE RIGHT TO SHUT DOWN SOMEONE ELSES
SERVERS!!!
They did not in any way shut down your server. No shutdown or
reboot
command was issued. They didn't turn off your power. Your server
is
up and running just fi
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Obviously, you are choosing to be dense. The bottom line is that the
particulars regarding this event were published. Whether or not you
availed yourself of that notification is immaterial. There was not
anything nefarious in the ClamAV tea
> > An open-source project is not supposed to change rules at will. The
> license
> > itself of open source software is often oriented toward this view,
> such
> > that
> > it guarantees people to keep using software they already got, even
> when the
> > project becomes a completely commercial one.
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
And you are free to do so, just as the developers are free to release
signatures that do not work with older versions. That is ALL that
happened. In doing so, clamd fails to be able to properly read the
database and fails.
Things are a bi
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
proactively
breaking running systems.
Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
it
broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obs
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Jerry wrote:
> Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion
that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than upgrade
it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do exactly
that sort of thing - and thi
I agree with you entirely. You're welcome to roll back to the
2010-4-
14 virus signatures before the less-than-0.95 kill switch was turned
on, and your outdated ClamAV will continue to run just fine with
these
old signatures.
This is feasible, but know needs some kind of human intervention
> > 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.
>
> >
> > Wasn't it better to simply let these system go the way they were used
> to?
> >
> > What's the difference from the clamav standpoint?
>
> The ClamAV developers want to continue on with things they way they are
> used to. They don't want to overhaul their update system just so they
> can c
> >>> What if your PS3 stops working because the maker thinks it is a
> too-old model to still go?
> >>
> >> A fine question. Let's suppose a certain old PS3 model has a
> serious
> >> manufacturing defect, such that it can overheat and catch fire.
> >
> > Which is not our case...
>
> You suggest
> None, and what you be doing next month when the new signatures came
> out and those same unpatched systems 'failed'?
According to the way I see it had to be, those unpatched systems would
simply don't get any update.
___
Help us build a comprehensive
> But you have not been forced to go to bleeding edge. 0.95 is outdated
> but still receives the updates OK. In all development there comes a
> time when you have to break with compatibility in order to achieve the
> results you desire. The ClamAV team felt that this was the time.
Incompatibility
> >> Why is it ridiculous? You could have configured you server to send
> >> the
> >> mail in case of ClamAV failure and yet you did not? Why?
> >
> > Know what? I didn't even need to.
> >
> > And you are still missing the point. Hope you don't do the same with
> > your
> > life.
> >
> > Giampaolo
On 4/16/10 8:05 AM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Was the 'stop gap' really useful? To which purpose? Did the ClamAV team
meant to stop old installations to work, in order to silence competitors?
Perhaps to teach to clamav users about the very complex nature of today
systems and services?
Unfortun
201 - 227 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
