X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-Id: <1137273523.12135.251862141@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Brett Serkez" <techie AT serkez DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: stat(2) triggers on-demand virus scan
In-Reply-To: <20060114203858.GB9302@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:18:43 -0500
References: <JAEBIEIILHAGMJNFODIEMEDHCDAA DOT _garbage_collector_ AT telia DOT com>    <1137270917 DOT 8322 DOT 251859045 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com>    <20060114203858 DOT GB9302 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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

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

As far as coding being 'perfectly acceptable', that is a matter of
point-of-
view.  If it causes such behavior, is it acceptable?

While I respect the purist point of view, one I've held over the years,
seems that we need to be practical sometimes.  Are you saying that if
the problem could be isolated, and reasonable changes proposed, you
wouldn't make/allow them?  Do we want IT administrators to utilize
Cygwin to integrate with the Linux/UNIX environment?  If this means not
being able to effectively use Cygwin if they are also required to run
ZoneAlarm, Norton, McAfee, what choice do you think they'll make, or
more precisely, their management will make on their behalf?

Since we ultimately don't know the root cause, this discussion is
premature, however if the group isn't going to be open to changes, there
is no point trying to find them, time would be better spent finding
alternates. That would be ashame as I think Cygwin is the most
progessive tool available for IT and development work.  Certainly for
those attempting to bridge the Linux/UNIX - Windows environment.

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/