On Sam, 2008-10-04 at 17:29 -0300, Aecio F. Neto wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, but that are facts.
> Because one decide to use a "free as in free beer" software one must suffer
> due this decision.
If you want to call it that way, then yes. And you have to suffer the
same way from it as you "suffer" from the it-doesn't-cost-you-anything.
Not that I can speak for the ClamAV people but most of the free software
projects accept your help to fix things which annoy you.
> "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.
Do you mean "free as in beer" or "free as in speech" 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.
Since it is free (as in speech) software, you have the source and you
can improve it.
> I cannot agree with this myth that commercial software is better than free.
No one said or implicated that.
There are aspects which are better with commercial software and others
are betters "free as in beer" software.
And there are aspects which are better with proprietory software and
others are betters "free as in speech" software.
Which aspects are (most) important to you, is your decision.
> There are bad and good software.
> I consider ClamAV an excellent software and this thread is an example that
> it can be improved.
There are hundreds of ways to improve ClamAV.
The question is: Which of these will be done by you (or anyone else)?
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
