No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In addition, you didn't fill the User Experience, Dependencies, Contingency Plan, Documentation and Release Notes sections, so the Feature Wrangler probably won't approve it anyway. [[User:Elad|Elad]] 13:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | In addition, you didn't fill the User Experience, Dependencies, Contingency Plan, Documentation and Release Notes sections, so the Feature Wrangler probably won't approve it anyway. [[User:Elad|Elad]] 13:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
For the clamavintegration feature to move onwards to FESCo for approval, we need to get more details filled out in some of the sections (User experience, dependencies, contingency plan, documentation, release notes). Once these are filled out, I can send it onwards. | For the clamavintegration feature to move onwards to FESCo for approval, we need to get more details filled out in some of the sections (User experience, dependencies, contingency plan, documentation, release notes). Once these are filled out, I can send it onwards. --[[User:Rbergero|Rbergero]] 17:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
Elad:You are right that this feature is only useful to those who also uses windows in dual boot.but this feature can also provide help to those who uses wine and can also provide anti-phishing and anti-rootkits like facilities to normal user.[[User:Rockworldmi|Rockworldmi]] 20:00, 4 January 2011 (IST) | |||
If it is useful only for wine and dual boot users, than it should not be default. | |||
Not all users use dual boot or wine. And rootkits? what rootkits? clamAV doesn't provide any protection from linux rootkits. | |||
In other words, clamAV is completely useless for the average user. Installing clamAV by default just because of these user cases is a waste of Live media space. | |||
[[User:Elad|Elad]] 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:49, 18 January 2011
Why would a user need ClamAV by default? ClamAV only scans for Windows viruses, so it's useful only for users who has Windows machines in their network, or for a mail or files server (ClamAV can scan emails and check if they contain viruses). I don't think it's useful by default. Windows viruses cannot possibly cause harm to a Fedora machine (unless it runs Wine, but Wine isn't installed on Fedora by default). In addition, you didn't fill the User Experience, Dependencies, Contingency Plan, Documentation and Release Notes sections, so the Feature Wrangler probably won't approve it anyway. Elad 13:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
For the clamavintegration feature to move onwards to FESCo for approval, we need to get more details filled out in some of the sections (User experience, dependencies, contingency plan, documentation, release notes). Once these are filled out, I can send it onwards. --Rbergero 17:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Elad:You are right that this feature is only useful to those who also uses windows in dual boot.but this feature can also provide help to those who uses wine and can also provide anti-phishing and anti-rootkits like facilities to normal user.Rockworldmi 20:00, 4 January 2011 (IST)
If it is useful only for wine and dual boot users, than it should not be default. Not all users use dual boot or wine. And rootkits? what rootkits? clamAV doesn't provide any protection from linux rootkits. In other words, clamAV is completely useless for the average user. Installing clamAV by default just because of these user cases is a waste of Live media space. Elad 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)