Antivirus in FC3?

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 11:36 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 08:33, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > I'm sort of through with this topic since you ask all these questions
> > without taking the time to understand the technology - but are focused
> > in on what you think you want and what you think that you know.
> 
> The *how* of the technology isn't the point - I can make a server
> start and add and search records.  The question you haven't
> answered is *why* anyone would ever want to make their system
> unique and unworkable with any others, and the related question
> of why, given one system configured for linux and windows
> authentication you can't just duplicate that setup for any
> number of similar networks?
> 
> > there isn't a bizarre syntax for searching...there is only the syntax.
> > In the way that computer languages look bizarre until I learn them, then
> > I guess this is bizarre.
> 
> OK, it's a religious issue I guess.  But I am not interested in
> inventing any new attributes and searches - I just want something
> that answers the already-done query that you get if you pick ldap
> in authconfig and the already-done queries that are included with
> samba.
> 
> > and yes, it does tell you why what the 'clients' are going to request
> > but I suppose you would have to understand the technology to understand
> > the technology. How does someone tell Postfix which filters to use if
> > they can't run a search from the command line?
> 
> How do I tell the kernel what drivers to load when it boots? There
> is a remarkable amount of technology in the distribution that
> you don't need to understand to use.  If your argument is that
> LDAP isn't ready for prime time, just say so.
> 
> > If I am setting DSA up to be a samba domain controller, that changes my
> > DSA substantially from those instances where I don't. Samba has this
> > need to find 'Computers' as people and I don't want 'Computers' in with
> > my 'People'.
> 
> There are lots of things I don't like to see. If that's what it takes
> to make it work, I just won't look there.  It doesn't have to be
> pretty.  
> 
> >  Windows has an entirely different concept of Groups, where
> > one group can contain another group (aka nested groups) but Posix
> > doesn't have a clue what that is about. Windows has 'domain' groups and
> > 'local' groups but Posix has only 'local' groups. So the answer to your
> > question about why your setup might be different than mine or one setup
> > might be different than another should be evident.
> 
> No.  If yours is going to work with windows and linux and mine is going
> to work with windows and linux (and I think I said that was a
> requirement long ago), then the schema has to include both Posix and
> samba stuff.  If that isn't true, please clarify what the other
> workable choices would be.
> 
> > Lastly - and it's obvious that I haven't made this point clear but I
> > will try one last time...
> > 
> > LDAP is entirely flexible - it is a database with teeth. It has been
> > given other tools to make it useful for things like authentication
> > systems.
> 
> Now you are sounding like a database admin that insists that all
> programming tasks have to be re-invented as stored procedures
> just because it is possible to do in his favorite language (and
> it gives him a lot of job security).  My goal is to avoid doing
> anything unique or that would not work in any mixed linux/
> windows network.  Given that the client queries are already
> built into the distribution I still don't see why that is
> impossible.
> 
> >  If some distribution or project comes up with an LDAP turnkey
> > facility, it will be an entirely limiting, their concept, their
> > implementation, their vision.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I want.  Something that provides the
> functionality to make the distribution work, and to whatever
> extent other distributions follow the same standards, include
> them.  
> 
> > You will find it useful while you have no
> > concept, little understanding of the implementation and no vision of
> > your own. The only thing that will let you escape from that concept,
> > that implementation and that vision is to learn the technology.
> 
> Yes, useful is what I want.  There are plenty of other databases
> for visions.  Postgresql would probably be my first choice.
----
OK then, I guess you are good to go

Craig