> On Jul 28, 2021, at 6:09 PM, Rick Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 2021, at 7:17 AM, Rick Cooper <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> total disregard for the user base, not so much as a poll or query on the >> lists, enjoy your new cutting edge toys >> >> Corporate BS rears it's ugly head again, First snort, then centos and now >> clamav. > > I think this is unfair. This is the feedback we’re getting. Sounds like we > don’t need a poll or a query. We’re hearing it now. > > Actually the way it was presented was here is what's going to happen and not > what would the community think about going to cmake, here are the advantages > to the community if we go this way. It wasn't presented as an option and it > took a lot of people off guard. It's like someone on the list said if you are > using an old stable enterprise version maybe you just need to switch to > something more cutting edge like Fedora, which is not stable and shouldn't be > used in an enterprise situation. When I upgrade an OS it's a very big deal > because I have to template it, use it in production at one of the sites to > make sure everything is stable, keep it out of the other upgrade paths (the > older OS's) and image it, go to several (100+es each) cities on a Sunday (to > be at console and cannot take it down any other day) and then update the site > specific pieces, test everything and drive 100+ back. What might be a small > thing for some is a real life's mess for many others. > > I didn't mean to be as offensive as it came out but I was pissed because for > my mail servers it's going to be a problem, I've built it on a file server > (Centos 7) alright but just to get to correct version of cmake built and all > the required dependencies was cumbersome at best.
I don’t think we took it like that, I certainly didn’t. I think a productive and healthy discussion around on the list is a great thing. > > > I also think it’s unfair to think “big bad Cisco” had anything to do with > this at all. ClamAV is beholden to Cisco in very few ways. In that it’s > integrated i > nto a few products, other than that, the ClamAV development team has pretty > full autonomy. No one is coming down to Micah and saying "YOU MUST YOU CMAKE > YOU PEON DEVELOPER MUHAHAHAHAHA”. > > That was , in fact, unfair of me. Perhaps the team isn't part of the culture. > I have had issue with Cisco for quite some time, really going back to when > they bought Linksys because their hardware was over priced and more and more > enterprises was realizing the didn't to pay Cisco for a name... rather than > simply build a reasonable priced series of equipment (as they do today) they > bought a reasonably prices equipment vendor. Cisco is a huge company. Security is quite different. > If you have feedback, this is the perfect use of this list to do so, but > we’re also all adults, with jobs, with passions, and we can be professional. > > As far as Snort, I think the same logic applies. The rewrite of Snort > started long before Cisco even entered the picture, it started when we were > still Sourcefire back in 2011-2012. I have the engineering slides! > > I'd have to think about it, I thought the paid sigs over community sigs began > with Cisco but maybe it was Sourcefire. We transitioned to paid sigs in 2003-2004? Cisco bought Sourcefire in 2013. So, yeah, Cisco had nothing to do with it. However, I run that program as well, so I’m very familiar with why we did it, why we continue to do it, and what the pros and cons of it. > I am sure you are right it's my bad attitude about Cisco, I am waiting for > them to purchase ubiquiti next. and the entire IBM Centos mess just turns up > my "big company" hackles. We purchased Meraki. :)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
