From: za kAT on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:30:48 -0400, David H. Lipman wrote:

> From: "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com>
>
>| Jeesus. It isn't necessary. It could be set up even now for incremental
>| updates. It's just not. Like I said, at this point it isn't really a big
>| deal. It just isn't necessary.
>
> You did not write the software so you can not state if it was neccessary or not.
> You can ONLY state it is not optimum.

David, Bottom has declared ReactOS could be pulled together to compete with
Windows in ~6 months... In comparison, this is a walk in the park, and I
expect it completed by Friday!

--
zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: Caesar Romano on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:12:49 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote Re Re: malwarebytes' anti-malware
question:

>I know the database and the MBAM signature process. Whole updates replacing last updates
>is an easier proposition without completely rewriting both the database and the engine.

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.
From: Mark Warner on
Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> It is always very interesting to see human reaction when faced with
> truths that conflict with their ego and emotions or even failures.

My irony meter just went into orbit.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
....lose .inhibitions when replying
From: Dustin Cook on
Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote in
news:Xns9D68AFECA53DFbearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.250:

> Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9D688828451ABHHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247:
>
>> Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9D62CDB38466bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.250:
>>
>>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>>> news:hqqrj201vuj(a)news3.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> From: "kraut" <kraut3852(a)yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>| It seems that every time (Sometimes twice a day) that I go to
>>>>| update malwarebytes' anti-malware I get a 4 to 5 MB download.
>>>>| Does it really change that much and are these DLs really
>>>>| necessary??
>>>>
>>>> Yes. There are no incremental updates they are complete signature
>>>> packets and everytime there is a new update there are additional
>>>> signatures.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it isn't really necessary. An incremental update could be
>>> managed. It is necessary in the sense that it is how MB does it.
>>
>> The updater and the server would both require reconfiguration and a
>> bit of new code to support that. It's easier to simply pull the
>> update and overwrite the older copy. It's not simply appending
>> additional data, tho.
>>
> As I said, it isn't really necessary. It is a choice. Not necessarily
> a bad one. Just a choice. But it isn't necessary. Or the choice of not
> providing incremental backups isn't necessary. The choice of providing
> incremental backups could easily be accomplished by altering the
> updater, reconfiguring the server, adding a bit of new code for
> appending the additional data and other changes that might be desired.

The database file is created anew for each def update. It's not simply a
matter of appending the data, as I said. the file formats internal
structure would have to change significantly. It's probably something
which will occur in a future update, as the code needs to be written for
that and other things; the core routines could be used for all kinds of
neat stuff that way.


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

From: Dustin Cook on
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:hrafdg02scu(a)news1.newsguy.com:

> I know the database and the MBAM signature process. Whole updates
> replacing last updates is an easier proposition without completely
> rewriting both the database and the engine.

Hell yes it is. :)


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior