Spiro Harvey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:51:00 +1200
Steve Wray <steve.w...@cwa.co.nz> wrote:
This would be ok if the distros maintained the servers which their
distributed version of Clamav updated from.
They don't. The responsibility in this case is that of those who
maintain Clamav, not the distros.
I would suggest that distros may want to take note of this situation;
its perhaps not unreasonable for them to maintain eg their own Clamav
update servers.
But the distro are the ones who gave you outdated unsupported software.
Had they provided you with a newer package, you wouldn't have had this
problem.
I didn't have this problem
I am just worried that OSS is *still* having problems dealing with basic
business commonsense.
Are you suggesting that if your distribution had packaged ClamAV 0.96
and your server(s) didn't break, that you would *still* be upset? Just
on principle?
I am not upset; I am concerned for OSS and for the way that this reflects
badly on it. And yes I really do think it has been bad PR
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
