Slashdot Mirror
Virex 7.2 Hazardous to Fink's Health
Gorgonzola writes "It was reported that Virex 7.2 and Fink were conflicting, it turned out that Virex 7.2 was overwriting libraries in Fink's default directory, thus hosing Fink for those who had it installed, and preventing Fink from installing for future users. Also, one user pointed out that of Virux's included packages, several (CURL, OpenSSL, and DLCompat) had license terms that Virex was ignoring." It is strongly recommended you don't install Virex 7.2 until this issue is resolved.
Sounds enough like 'virus' that I'd be wary of installing it in the first place.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Um, it's spelled Virex, not Virux.
Post a complaint that sounds real bad, that a small percentage of the readers of the article will understand...
Maybe the author should be even more vague...
"If you install a software product when another software product is also installed, libraries will be overwritten. Other software will be affected."
Then the slashdot editor can append:
You probaly shouldn't install a software product.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Hrm. Another example of commercialism gone bad, and not just to the detriment of users. we don't even get a choice!. Once ths one virus package is installed, fink cannot be used.
This sounds less like the makers of virex are supporting open source by using the software in their systems, than it is they're working against it by ensuring that nothing else can use it.
Which would be more popular for OS X users? I think most people will end up with virex on their systems by the sound of it, and make fink look silly when it fails
no fink, no open source on OS X.
Have virex done this on purpose?
The files that get overwritten by Virex are:
//sw
/sw/lib
/sw/lib/libcrypto.0.9.6.dylib
/sw/lib/libcurl.2.0.2.dylib
/sw/lib/libcurl.2.dylib
/sw/lib/libdl.0.dylib
/sw/lib/libssl.0.9.6.dylib
Fink developers have already posted the correct way to embedding a dylib into a bundle on OS X on the McAfee forums
The viruses that McAfee attempts to prevent are really from Windows-land anyway. I have yet to run across a true native MacOSX virus. And finally, McAfee wasn't giving any credit to the Fink project. They should know better. No suprise then that Virex got bought out by a company called Network Ass.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Um, what does this have to do with AOL?
The solution to the whole thing is so simple. Dump your OSX, your Darwin or whatever...install the Apple port of Ninnle Linux!
Since when is Virex's job to screw up fink because perl is "better"?
I asked this on macslash too and nobody gave an answer - can anybody name a single OS X virus or worm that a tool like Virex actually prevents? Why do I want to waste my time scanning for Windows viruses that won't hurt my machine and won't be transmitted to other machines unless I am enough of a moron to forward random .vbs files from emails asking for advice or offering to play a very excite game? Word macro viruses exist but it's easier to turn off macros in word than to scan every document. Why would anyone want to install Virex at all? Is it just for the psychological comfort of seeing a program tell you your system is safe?
Thursday, that went in effect on Thursday.
I know some will disagree with me on this but I just don't see the need for virus programs on the mac. I have used several different macs for the last 7 years (9 and X). I have never gotten any kind of virus, trojan, malicious attack, etc. OS X is just about the most secure operating system out there and if you have use the built-in firewall and don't open attachments from people you don't know, that's really all it takes. Besides, there is only like 1 virus that exists for OS X right now anyway.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Well, sure. Norton Antivirus is the worst. It doesn't transmit itself electronically, to be sure, but it does replicate through marketing and fear. And if you install it on your system, you're guaranteed to have serious problems after.
If you install Virex, you probably won't also install NAV. Therefore, Virex, in most instances, prevents you from getting NAV. What a lifesaver!
=Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
Why does Fink install itself in /sw? This is not the place for 3rd-party add-ons. It's completely non-standard and confusing.
/usr/local/fink. Why doesn't it? And please do not point me towards the Fink FAQ--this only refers to installing in /usr/local (fine, a bad idea), but neverthelss, /sw should not be the alternative. /usr/local/fink with directories like /usr/local/fink/bin and /usr/local/fink/lib would be a considerably more Unix-consistent place to put these files.
/sw is a particularly bad name too, as nowhere in the name does it associate itself with fink--i.e., the software that put the directory there. plus, if I have /usr on a separate partition for all user-installed software, I want the fink stuff to go there too!
Fink should install itself into
The directory
- j
OS X _needs_ Perl, OS X does not need FINK.
Clearly the Virex Developers have screwed up by using FINK derived libraries, but I agree with AC I much prefer a working Perl to a broken Perl and a working FINK.
Virex Developers should fix this.
This
"no fink, no open source on OS X."
Um, most of the Open Source software that I've installed has been done without fink, thank you very much, and many individuals who work quite a bit with open source have a strong distaste for it.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Well, there are some macroviruses that work on the Mac, but they require you to have MS Office...
Other than that, there are none that I am aware of.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Sure, if Fink was a single app it should be in /usr/local. But it's not. Fink is a package manager that put all software it manages in one place, isolated from the standard OS X directories. That means that Fink users don't have to worry about trashing OS X with non-standard libraries and don't have to worry about software update trashing their copy of the Gimp by installing an incompatible piece of code.
/sw".
It also means that you can safely uninstall every fink package you ever compiled by typing "rm -rf
What's so bad about this?
Clear, Dark Skies
Yes why didn't I thought about that before ?
Cause linux isn't affected by software that installs older/incompatible versions of libraries ?
Imagine a software that force installs an older version of glibc... what do you think would happen then ?
Not to worry. Ninnle Linux runs perfectly no matter what it's installed on. Your problems will be over...all thanks to the wonders of Ninnle!
As the main author of libcurl, I've apparently been mentioned in the About box of Virex and now people have started emailing me feature-requests for Virex...