Antivirus in FC3?

[Les Mikesell]

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 14:29, Craig White wrote:

> > That's the odd part.  All the pieces are there, but they are still
> > useless unless someone puts them together in a standard way.
> ----
> OK - I'll byte - what is the standard way? I certainly don't see a
> standard way defined by openldap.org
> ----

It will be the way that the most popular distribution decides to
ship it.

> > Most people need just what the clients
> > included in their distribution know how to query plus perhaps a
> > replacement for their ancient windows NT domain controller.  All
> > easily canned stuff.
> ----
> I've been doing exactly that - replacing WinNT 4 domain
> controllers...damn if I see it as 'easily canned stuff' - I'm obviously
> not as bright as you.
> ----

Not me - I haven't made it all work yet because as soon as a popular
distribution ships something, everything else will be obsolete.  However
the discussion on the k12ltsp list leads me to believe that a scripted
setup works for a lot of people, and they end up with linux accounts
with automounted home dirs and an idealx based domain controller. If
a few more people succeed with the setup it will probably be included
in the distribution which is basically fedora plus ltsp and a few other
extras.

> ----
> of course the 'good default' of IDEALX doesn't do anything with
> automounted home directories - in fact - I haven't spent the time, but
> Red Hat's autofs.schema doesn't work at all with openldap-2.2.24
> 
> One of these days, I'm gonna play with it and find out why - haven't had
> the time.
> ----

If you poke through recent k12ltsp list archives you should find the
script setup.

> ----
> open source - knock yourself out - or leave it to others to do it but it
> hardly seems to be a valid complaint if you expect others to do that for
> you.
> ----

But it is of marginal use if it won't work automatically with the
next box I install.  That won't happen until a big player sets the
standard.

> > 
> > But there are clients already in the distribution - just no server to
> > match.
> ----
> some clients yes...but many clients no
> ----

Authentication, samba, addressbooks, maybe sendmail - I'll settle for
all of those working network-wide.

> I know that the only 'simple' implementation is one that isn't that
> simple when you start to flesh it out.

The kernel isn't simple - apache isn't simple - sendmail isn't simple.
Things that are already done don't have to be simple to work.

> And by the way...'the most popular distribution DOES ship a working
> server based upon standards' - at least as they interpret them and that
> includes kerberos, dns, dhcp, account management, authentication
> services and ldap - it's called Windows Server.

Seems to have worked out OK for them.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   les at futuresource.com