Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 16:08 -0600, Tomasz Kojm wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:02:57 -0700 Hal Goldfarb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alert packagers to get a jump? Maybe 2 or 3 days before the support for the previously supported code is abandoned. Maybe won't work, You're still missing the point here. Please read my yesterday's posts. Since I read this newsgroup, I have never been surprised by a new version. There is a bit of warning before an RC comes out, and there are people tossing patches around before a minor update (line 0.81 -0.82 -0.83 So, if you want a little warning, just keep your ears open. -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CNX Austin Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Feb 16, 2005, at 02:44, Dennis Peterson wrote: christian laubscher said: On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:40:42PM -0700, Hal Goldfarb wrote: [...] I also think RPM binaries should be made available before an official release. [...] please not! Piggy-backing: Maybe they could stick a broom up their bum and sweep the floor at the same time, too. Dayum, guy - this stuff is free. Get off your butt and build your own binaries - hell, it takes maybe 10 minutes, is repeatable, and you get all the credit. Don't even suggest they put my Solaris source builds in limbo until all the weenies have their little rpm's all bundled up, ribboned, bowed, and ready for a point and click install. This is not rocket science - rocket science is loud and makes smoke trails. Y'all are giving Unix a bad name. dp Well put... -- Dale ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
Okay, okay. I guess the RPM business went too far. And you are right this is free software. But the thing that actually gets me is that when a new release of Clam comes out, it seems like there is all sorts of catching up to do. Believe it or not, I actually know how to use rpm tools. And I have about 10 years experience in configuration management (but none of it involving packaging of open software). The issue started out -- and then I went overboard because I felt frustrated -- that all of a sudden I discover that freshclam is not running, and only because I happened to be looking at it at that moment. Why it stops running is a mysterious: Do I have to have the latest code to match the virus defs, or does the existing code handle a newer schema for one or two releases until everyone has a chance to catch up with the latest code? And, please, don't snap at me. If you stopped to read the entire email I sent, you would see that I was thinking of a worldwide community of clamav users, not just very technical people who have the resources to put it all together. I was thinking of all of you and the hard work you are putting in. Really I was. Thank you, Hal ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 at 3:16:25 -0700, Hal Goldfarb wrote: [...] The issue started out -- and then I went overboard because I felt frustrated -- that all of a sudden I discover that freshclam is not running, and only because I happened to be looking at it at that moment. Why it stops running is a mysterious: [...] Why do you think that freshclam stops running when there is an updated version of the code?? -- Tomasz PapszunSysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland| And it's only tomek at lodz.tpsa.pl http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/iso/ | ones and zeros. tomek at clamav.net http://www.ClamAV.net/ A GPL virus scanner ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:16:25 -0700 in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hal Goldfarb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The issue started out -- and then I went overboard because I felt frustrated -- that all of a sudden I discover that freshclam is not running, and only because I happened to be looking at it at that moment. Why it stops running is a mysterious: Do I have to have the latest code to match the virus defs, or does the existing code handle a newer schema for one or two releases until everyone has a chance to catch up with the latest code? It sounds like you may have an issue with freshclam anyway, although I'm not sure what. There have been some problems mentioned of this nature with clamd, although I don't remember so many with freshclam. A read of the list archives should help spot anything that applies. Freshclam (all versions I've ever used) here keeps running just fine when new versions come out. -- Brian Morrison bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk GnuPG key ID DE32E5C5 - http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/wwwkeys.html ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
RE: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hal Goldfarb Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:41 PM I am trying to play by the rules, honest. Can you instruct me on how to properly be informed of clamav code updates? I also think RPM binaries should be made available before an official release. There are probably a lot of people out there who are not CVS and/or build savvy, but want to support you all in your efforts to provide the world with a free and open anti-virus tool. I rather wait a couple of days for some packager to kindly make the rpm/ebuild/etc for me and let the development team focus on what they do: develop! Asking them to do packages as well will only make the whole process slower and nobody wants that. This product is designed for _mail servers_, that means that will be used by _sysadmins_ who should know how to unpack/configure/make/make_install. We here use crash's srpm just for convenience (that is SRPMS =). We compile the program for our needs, but since we use Fedora, we like it to be all about RPMs. If your system is so important the needs to be upgraded as fast as possible, you should ask for some paid support (not to the clamav team, but to some third party). I guess your system worth it. -Samuel ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
Piggy-backing: Maybe they could stick a broom up their bum and sweep the floor at the same time, too. Dayum, guy - this stuff is free. Get off your butt and build your own binaries - hell, it takes maybe 10 minutes, is repeatable, and you get all the credit. Don't even suggest they put my Solaris source builds in limbo until all the weenies have their little rpm's all bundled up, ribboned, bowed, and ready for a point and click install. This is not rocket science - rocket science is loud and makes smoke trails. Y'all are giving Unix a bad name. dp I'll second that. ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
RE: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
-Original Message- From: Hal Goldfarb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML I am trying to play by the rules, honest. Can you instruct me on how to properly be informed of clamav code updates? I also think RPM binaries should be made available before an official release. There are probably a lot of people out there who are not CVS and/or build savvy, but want to support you all in your efforts to provide the world with a free and open anti-virus tool. I've been rolling my own RPM's for a while now.. I try to keep the latest one available via my toaster site.. I'm sure I can open this up a bit and set up a clamav RPM site if necessary.. http://www.godshell.com/toaster Just my two bits. Thanks Hal ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users -- Jason Frisvold Penteledata ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
RE: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
Your right 99.% of the people using computers are not Unix Admins. But they sure have an impact on the amount of traffic generated by infected systems sending email. While I agree that you should not hold up any code just so you can do a release across the board. In the long run we all benefit when the software is easy to install and maintain for all types of users. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Grau Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:35 AM To: ClamAV users ML Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML Piggy-backing: Maybe they could stick a broom up their bum and sweep the floor at the same time, too. Dayum, guy - this stuff is free. Get off your butt and build your own binaries - hell, it takes maybe 10 minutes, is repeatable, and you get all the credit. Don't even suggest they put my Solaris source builds in limbo until all the weenies have their little rpm's all bundled up, ribboned, bowed, and ready for a point and click install. This is not rocket science - rocket science is loud and makes smoke trails. Y'all are giving Unix a bad name. dp I'll second that. ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 09:30, John Gallagher wrote: Your right 99.% of the people using computers are not Unix Admins. But they sure have an impact on the amount of traffic generated by infected systems sending email. While I agree that you should not hold up any code just so you can do a release across the board. In the long run we all benefit when the software is easy to install and maintain for all types of users. Thank you, finally someone understands what I am saying. As far as giving Unix a bad name, I am not sure what dp meant, but again, if people would just read what I actually wrote, they would understand that I am of the mindset that we should be making Linux easier to use for all types of users, not just sysadmins. That would give Unix and Linux a good name. Keep in mind that serious, busy sysadmins don't have time to build and package all of the different tools they support in addition to clamav. 10 minutes each times all those different packages is still more time than some sysadmins have in a day. I know, because I have been a sysadmin. You are right this is NOT rocket science, but it is very time consuming. Remember, not every package builds correctly on every platform, even popular ones. Sorting out those problems eats a lot of time. Also keep in mind that some of those packages, like database and desktop software, can be huge and take an extraordinary amount of time to build; there may not be much time in a sysadmin's day for building even one more small package like clamav. And also keep in mind that Gramma Jones won't be using Linux and open software for long if her Konquerer web browser isn't fitted with the latest versions of Spamassassin and Clamav. She may not recognize a rogue web site, or a malicious link, if she can even see through those coke-bottle glasses she wears. Maybe you find the notion of senior citizens using Linux quite laughable, but I don't. I would like everyone on earth to be freed from the scourge of using that more popular, so-called O.S. Clamav is still a pre-release 1.0 package, and I don't expect everything to work just perfectly. But unlike a game or PDA interface, this is mission critical software, whether for a mail server or protecting a user from the horrors of the web. Once again, I am stating that I am not your enemy. Thank you John for seeing my point of view. Suggestion: How about a pre-release notification that would, in part, alert packagers to get a jump? Maybe 2 or 3 days before the support for the previously supported code is abandoned. Maybe won't work, but thought I'd throw it out there. -Hal ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:02:57 -0700 Hal Goldfarb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alert packagers to get a jump? Maybe 2 or 3 days before the support for the previously supported code is abandoned. Maybe won't work, You're still missing the point here. Please read my yesterday's posts. -- oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED] (\/)\. http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Wed Feb 16 23:07:22 CET 2005 pgpd0x1LpYamp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:40:42PM -0700, Hal Goldfarb said: I subscribed to the clamav-announce mailing list just yesterday. I guess that was too late to be informed of 0.83. However, I checked the archive for the clamav-announce list and there does not seem to be any mention of 0.83 there either. Or do I need to adjust my monitor, change browsers, or get eyeglasses? Maybe - it's in my clamav-announce mailbox, at least. Try: http://lists.clamav.net/lurker/message/20050214.003000.79670a95.en.html I am trying to play by the rules, honest. Can you instruct me on how to properly be informed of clamav code updates? I also think RPM binaries should be made available before an official release. There are probably a lot of people out there who are not CVS and/or build savvy, but want to support you all in your efforts to provide the world with a free and open anti-virus tool. The ClamAV does not make the rpm's. The way open source development usually works is that the source version is released first, and then binary packagers grab the source and build rpm's, deb's or whatever from the source. There is no realistic way for the clam developers to know who each and every person making a binary package out of their source is, so that they can coordinate a release. The system in place works fine, and if you have decent packagers, just wait until they release a new package version. It is the simplest, and it load shares nicely. If you absolutely must have the latest version the second it comes out, I suggest learning CVS and the build tools, or paying someone to stay on top of it for you. I am not trying to be mean, you understand, I am just trying to explain that there is already a system in place that works well. If it does not meet your expectations, you have to adjust either your expectations or your toolset. -- -- | Stephen Gran | If the odds are a million to one| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | against something occurring, chances| | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | are 50-50 it will. | -- pgp6lic3WqV4E.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:40:42PM -0700, Hal Goldfarb wrote: [...] I also think RPM binaries should be made available before an official release. [...] please not! -- ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] No announcement of 0.83 on clamav-announce ML
christian laubscher said: On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:40:42PM -0700, Hal Goldfarb wrote: [...] I also think RPM binaries should be made available before an official release. [...] please not! Piggy-backing: Maybe they could stick a broom up their bum and sweep the floor at the same time, too. Dayum, guy - this stuff is free. Get off your butt and build your own binaries - hell, it takes maybe 10 minutes, is repeatable, and you get all the credit. Don't even suggest they put my Solaris source builds in limbo until all the weenies have their little rpm's all bundled up, ribboned, bowed, and ready for a point and click install. This is not rocket science - rocket science is loud and makes smoke trails. Y'all are giving Unix a bad name. dp ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
