Darryl Gregorash wrote: > On 2006-12-06 13:54, Adi Pircalabu wrote: >> John Andersen wrote: >> >>> extreemly late getting out updates to very time sensitive packages >>> such as SpamAssassin. These packages are a month old. >>> >>> Cpan at most 24 hours old. >>> >> 1. What is important for you may not be that important for others >> > Having the most recent virus definition files is not important?
Any serious antivirus vendor must have a decent updating procedure for the most important part: virus definitions and scanning engines. They are the "core" of every AV solution and do not usually depend on a specific package version. I have not seen yet an AV software which forces me to update my entire installation on a daily basis, for every new virus signature update. I should be able to update the engines only. >> 2. Newer does not always mean better/safer/faster. It rather means untested. >> > Certainly not in the case of virus definition files. >>> A generic question: Why would it be so hard for a software updater >>> package to check for the existance of packages installed by other >>> means? >>> >> Why would you want this mix-up of package & source installed software? >> Especially, how can a vendor be able to offer support (a generic term >> for, let's say, software assurance) >> If a client requires a particular version of some software, so be it, >> you'll tailor the solution for them. But the stock version should always >> contain tested software. >> > I guess you don't care about your clients missing the occasional new > virus that is only caught in the virus definition update that was > released today. If you're talking about SA here, there is always sa-update(1) to update the .cf files. -- Adi Pircalabu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
