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
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
Yeah, lemme tell you how much a company that isn't Microsoft would WANT to break software on the computer it is being installed on. It wouldn't, plain and simple. Users have a funny way of bitching REALLY hard when new software breaks their currently installed software. Therefore companies don't want to break shit. Stop with the bullshit 'Apple is evil' trolling in disguise.
Um, what does this have to do with AOL?
The only reason I ever ran Virex was to be a 'nice guy' to friends who use Windows and make sure that in forwarding some MS Office document from one Windows user to another I don't forward a virus as well. Virex has probably caught about 50 Windows viri over the years but never once anything that would actually execute on my Mac.
Fink is 'the' package management system on the Mac and the only one I use. I think my reaction is very typical: "Goodbye Virex."
I really doubt this is some anti OSS plot. Sounds to me like the PHB asked the programmer if the new version of Virex was ready, the programmer said something like "Yes, as soon as I move some libraries into the bundle and put some acknowledgements in the 'Read Me' file."
The PHB said "We'll do that stuff for the next release."
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?
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