If the only option is to disable VRDB, why would I need to stay with Avast? The REASON I switched TO Avast was for the VRDB. It's the difference between being able to recover an infected file and just deleting it.
That's a HUGE difference. And you're saying it's not a "must have"? Then, Avast is not a must have either.
Additionally, if Avast has this problem, then what other problems might it have?
It can't handle infinite recursion on ext2/3 partitions, and does not fail gracefully (it will actually crash and kill the entire av protection). Can it handle infinite recursion on ntfs partitions (via hardlinks?). Probably not, given the evidence. All a virus would have to do is create recursive hardlinks before and after itself, and voila, protected from Avast. That's not the security I'm looking for.
In addition, the exclusions list claims to affect "all parts of avast except for the resident protection". This is demonstrably false. Since this claim is false, what other claims might also be false?
This is a massive bug (more massive due to the fact that it would be easily fixable in a number of different ways {limit the number of directories deep it goes, respect the exclusions list, fail more gracefully, monitor resources so it doesn't fail in the first place, etc} ANY of which would have solved it).
As a result, I cannot trust Avast in its current state. The only advice I get is "disable VRDB"? Why stop there?
(I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just frustrated that I'm being prevented from using an otherwise good product by this stupid deal-breaking easily-fixable bug)