X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	"Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan
Date:	Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:27:37 -0600
Message-ID:	<002701c6199c$c7bf3f70$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<1137273523.12135.251862141@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

> From: Brett Serkez
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:19 PM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:35:17PM -0500, Brett Serkez wrote:
> > >I'm still researching, I was going to respond this is posting at a 
> > >later time with more insight, but before things get out-of-hand, I 
> > >wanted to jump in.  I suppose I'm still hopeful that we 
> can zero in 
> > >on what precisely is causing the on-demand scanners to consume so 
> > >much CPU. Since Windows programs don't trigger the same level of 
> > >response (or atleast they don't appear to) their must be 
> some change 
> > >that can be made.
> >
> > I just wanted to make it clear that we aren't going to be 
> making any 
> > special concessions to a product like a virus scanner which cause 
> > perfectly acceptable code to misbehave.  If that is the 
> case then it 
> > is a situation for the virus scanner to work out.  It's not a 
> > requirement that cygwin work around things like this.
> 
> Well, that is a pretty strong statement, I'd expect from a 
> for-profit company run by corporate management.  ZoneLabs 
> offical stance is that they don't support emulated 
> environments.

I have to assume whoever said or wrote that was either thinking "Wine", or
not thinking at all, since Cygwin is ultimately no different than any other
Windows application from their software's perspective.

>  Humm...  So if neither are willing to change, 
> then what?  I don't know Symantec's or McAfee's offical stance.
> 

Last I checked it was "cause more problems than the viruses we purportedly
protect you from would".

Look guys, the bottom line here is that on-access virus scanners cause
trouble.  Not just for Cygwin, and not just particular ones.  Scan your
incoming email, scan your downloads, do your backups, cross your fingers,
and hope for a horrible death for the virus-writing idiots of the world.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -