Jerry wrote: > On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:04:22 -0700 > John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jerry wrote: >> >>> The sad part is that they will continue to blame others for their >>> lackadaisical approach. >> So, let me attempt to summarize your side of this here (and do correct >> me if my summary is wrong, as I'm not trying to build a strawman >> argument). >> >> You're justifying the laziness of the developers by accusing the >> users/sysadmins of being lazy? Seems a little hypocritical, doesn't >> it? > > So now you are accusing the developers of being a group of lazy > bastards. I am sure that, that will encourage them to hasten a fix > (which assumes something is broken, and I am not of that frame of mind) > for your problem(s).
I never said bastards. Thanks for conflating things, and continuing to show you're just taking the point of hypocrisy and willfully being obtuse. Did you take lessons in de-railing discussions from Karl Rove? I'm going to guess that next you're going to accuse me of having an interracial lovechild out of wedlock... And, no, I'm not accusing the actual ClamAV developers as being lazy, I'm characterizing/summarizing the resistance argument (to the original request(s)) by the naysayers. Nice attempt at a strawman, though. > On a serious note, if you are so unhappy, and your tone definitely > indicates that you are, the solution is easily within your grasp. I'm not unhappy with ClamAV. I'm unhappy with the naysayer arguments being given (by you and Dennis in particular). They're childish, misleading, and counter productive to the overall software ecosystem (and ClamAV in particular). ClamAV, in general, is a gem with rough edges. A few of us are suggesting a means of refining a few of those rough edges. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
