On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > users could take the appropriate action ASAP instead of finding out or > > > having to check the logs on an hourly basis for problems. > > > > You're (by you I mean everyone agreeing here with how ClamAV fails) > > assuming users install packages. That's old fashioned. > > Most people distribute updates with Puppet and such tools > > automatically. With a largely complex system (which a good mail system > > > And it was *their* decision to do so. > And it was *their* decision to actually use the free as in beer ClamAV > in the first place. Perhaps these people should move to a commercial > virus-scanner where such problems probably do not happen. > That's one kind of argument I cannot stand for. Because one decide to use a "free as in free beer" software one must suffer due this decision. "Ah, you choose clamav: now you will be doomed". Why? Why free software has to be harder (or with more problem) than a commercial one and one must accept that? That's the kind of argument that takes people away from free/open source software. Free/Open source softwar should be as nice as any other commercial - or not - software out there. There are great software - free or not - and bad software - free or not. I cannot agree with this myth that commercial software is better than free. There are bad and good software. I consider ClamAV an excellent software and this thread is an example that it can be improved. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
