X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-Id: <1137279170.20166.251865629@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: "Brett Serkez" To: Cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1137270917 DOT 8322 DOT 251859045 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> <20060114203858 DOT GB9302 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <1137273523 DOT 12135 DOT 251862141 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> <20060114221213 DOT GC9302 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT 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 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/