> > Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion > > that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than upgrade > > it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do exactly > > that sort of thing - and this issue with clamav getting the kill > > switch can be just the sort of excuse they need. It may not be a > > valid reason, but then so many business decisions are based on having > > enough excuses to do what you want rather than doing what would > > logically be right. As Giampaolo comments, some people (especially > > PHBs) simply see it as "that Linux stuff blew up, best go with > > Microsoft like everyone else". > > The two who have "pointed out that real world PHB do exactly that sort > of thing" now are operating broken systems. So much for credibility.
See, Jerry. Credibility is something one have to gain. In my small domain, I already did it. What about you? I see you're quite far from it at the moment, since you are trying to drive people to think that complains are only from bad sysadms. I can't of course speak for others, but I'm complaining because of the bad light in which the ClamAV team put open-software with the 0.96 case. My systems, Jerry, work fine, thank you. But I had a couple of phone calls from some friend sysadmins (yes, I have friends colleagues. Do you?) who were in trouble due to ClamAV. Open software shouldn't behave this way. The ClamAV team should have implemented ways to not screw old installation while going for its own way. There were feasible ways to do this, but they chose not to follow them. Period. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
