|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > clamav-users archives|
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:37:19 +0100
Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:50:09AM +0100, Simon Hobson said:
> > Dan wrote:
> > >Yes, some updates can be problematic. But in this case, surely,
> > >there were updates during the year that worked just fine. In most
> > >cases, tho, I'm thinking the people complaining slacked off
> > >completely - unlike you, they didn't even bother to test the
> > >releases.
> > And cf todays thread (LibClamAV Error: Can't load), which can be
> > summararised as : It was working fine You broke it for me
> You seem to be massively missing the point. In a short while, there
> will be signatures in the database that will have the same effect for
> older versions of clamd, because they will trigger the same bug. Which
> way would you prefer clamd to die - with a helpful error message, or
> with a hex string that makes no sense to you? That was the only choice.
I am sorry to intervene your discussion at this point but this argument is
more or less saying that the clamav authors are incompetent in finding a way
to design a signature database that knows versioning, meaning different
versions of clamd can use it with differing or equal number of available
signatures. Did you really mean that?
If this was not your intention then you should just accept what it probably
really was: unnecessarily playing god in their very own playground, giving a
damn about others point of view. You may either call this fundamentalistic,
"we know the sole truth and that's why _all_ others have to obey".
You can find this kind of thinking in a lot of commercial software companies,
but really seldomly in community driven projects. The reason for this is
pretty simple, the real strength of a community is its immanent broad variety
of thoughts expressed by the participants. If you deny that it means you have
not accepted the community model as a whole.