Message-Id: <1137279170.20166.251865629@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Brett Serkez" <techie@serkez.net>
To: Cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <JAEBIEIILHAGMJNFODIEMEDHCDAA._garbage_collector_@telia.com>    <1137270917.8322.251859045@webmail.messagingengine.com>    <20060114203858.GB9302@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>    <1137273523.12135.251862141@webmail.messagingengine.com>    <20060114221213.GC9302@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Subject: Re: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan
In-Reply-To: <20060114221213.GC9302@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:52:50 -0500
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

[snip]
> We are not going to visit the slippery slope of adding code to Cygwin
> to  work around other third party software.

I'm hoping and assuming it is going to be more a matter of making minor
changes, if it requires a major change, then it is more likely Microsoft
or some other vendor is at fault.

[snip]
> >ZoneLabs offical stance is that they don't support emulated
> >environments.  Humm...  So if neither are willing to change, then
> >what? I don't know Symantec's or McAfee's offical stance.
>
> Cygwin is a program which uses standard the win32 api.  The fact that
> the win32 api is used to present a bash prompt is no different than
> using the win32 api to present a word processor screen.  Assuming that
> the "emulated environment" above actually refers to Cygwin then
> failure on Zonealarm's part to fix bugs that cause Cygwin's use of the
> windows API to misbehave is an arbitrary distinction and a cop-out.

Strongly agreed.  I've already pointed this out to them to no avail.

> >As far as coding being 'perfectly acceptable', that is a matter of
> >point-of- view.  If it causes such behavior, is it acceptable?
>
> It is not a matter of a point of view if code works as documented in a
> virus-scanner-free environment and fails to work when a virus scanner
> is installed.

From what I've been seeing, I'm starting to suspect that the problem(s)
is
there in both cases, the scanner simply makes it much more noticable.  I
do see more CPU consumption that I woud have expected even without the
virus scanner and the original poster's calling out stat was most
interesting.

[snip]

Brett
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett C. Serkez, Techie


--
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/