Re: [Clamav-users] [0.6] Re: announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote: Minor correction: RICH Americans (and Canadians) don't appreciate this dilemma. All the POOR people still using dial-up internet are the victims It will be a bad day for all when poor people set the standards of quality and functionality for the rest of the world. Pity you can't read what is written. I never suggested lowering standards, I actually suggested returning to a *higher* standard, where people don't just use bloated tools to write bloated code, but return to writing good, compact (and as a side benefit, usually less error-prone) code. Doing the same (or better) job, and using less resources all around. THAT would benefit all, as opposed to sloppy, careless standards created by large corporations with only their own self-interest in mind. - Charles ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] [0.6] Re: announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Charles Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pity you can't read what is written. I never suggested lowering standards, I actually suggested returning to a *higher* standard, where people don't just use bloated tools to write bloated code, but return to writing good, compact (and as a side benefit, usually less error-prone) code. Doing the same (or better) job, and using less resources all around. THAT would benefit all, as opposed to sloppy, careless standards created by large corporations with only their own self-interest in mind. Well, to write the smallest and most efficient code possible, the developers would need to write in pure assembly language. I guess we can all agree that, that is not about to happen anytime soon. Personally, I think they do a good job. You cannot please everyone, which is why I believe in the old saying: If you cannot please everyone, then you better please yourself. Besides, I would not go around bad mouthing large corporations. You, exactly like them, have your own self interest as a priority. The difference, is that they have the clout to get what they want, and you don't. Therein lies the problem. As usual, just my 2ยข. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] No wonder Clairol makes so much money selling shampoo. Lather, Rinse, Repeat is an infinite loop! signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] [0.6] Re: announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Charles Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote: Minor correction: RICH Americans (and Canadians) don't appreciate this dilemma. All the POOR people still using dial-up internet are the victims It will be a bad day for all when poor people set the standards of quality and functionality for the rest of the world. Pity you can't read what is written. I never suggested lowering standards, I actually suggested returning to a *higher* standard, where people don't just use bloated tools to write bloated code, but return to writing good, compact (and as a side benefit, usually less error-prone) code. Doing the same (or better) job, and using less resources all around. THAT would benefit all, as opposed to sloppy, careless standards created by large corporations with only their own self-interest in mind. So, given that you have to get the signature database somehow, how do you propose that it's done? I suppose that a version without this is possible, but suppose I then build it on my Linux box. I find that when doing a package update the database associated with the previous version is no use because its dependencies are the previous version's binaries and it will then be removed and must be downloaded in any case. There is no simple answer. -- Brian Morrison bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a while you realize you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it. GnuPG key ID DE32E5C5 - http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/wwwkeys.html ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] [0.6] Re: announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Brian Morrison wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Charles Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, given that you have to get the signature database somehow, how do you propose that it's done? I suppose that a version without this is possible, but suppose I then build it on my Linux box. I find that when doing a package update the database associated with the previous version is no use because its dependencies are the previous version's binaries and it will then be removed and must be downloaded in any case. Many times, there are people downloading the software just in the case they'll need it... I've even saw some dumb robots downloading many megabytes of software, ... One solution is to create configure rules. That means, when you type make install, one of the actions will be to take a look if some database is there or not. If a database is needed, then make install will launch some script which will download and create the initial database or upgrade the existing one. I'm not sure that this is exactly what shall be done, but the idea is there. At least, you can be sure that the number of downloads of the database will be lower than the number of downloads of the software itself. There is no simple answer. I agree, but that's not a reason to avoid looking for a better answer. JM ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
