From: unruh on
On 2010-01-13, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd experiment with an anti-virus scanner or two and following
> the recommendation in Linux Format magazine decided to have a look at
> BitDefender.
>
> The package available for download ends in rpm.run which the Fedora
> package manager says it doesn't understand, and I don't blame it,
> neither do I..!
>
> How the **** do I install
> BitDefender-Antivirus-Scanner-7.6-4.linux-gcc4x.i586.rpm.run

I presume they want you to make it executable and then execute that
file.
I also assume that this is done to demonstrate that if you are stupid
enough to take an arbitrary file from off the web, and run it, you
deserve everything you get.


>
>
> Ivor
>
>
From: chris on
On 13/01/10 08:08, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> I thought I'd experiment with an anti-virus scanner or two and following
> the recommendation in Linux Format magazine decided to have a look at
> BitDefender.

I personally think that was the worst group test I've seen them or
anyone else do for a long time.

They didn't explain what their scoring was for finding viruses, which is
the only point for having AV software, and they picked the one which
used upto 5x the RAM of the others! In Windows' tests RAM hungry AV
tools get murdered for taking too much system resources.

From: Tony Houghton on
In <7r5dbmFg5rU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Ivor Jones <ivor(a)thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

>
> I thought I'd experiment with an anti-virus scanner or two and following
> the recommendation in Linux Format magazine decided to have a look at
> BitDefender.
>
> The package available for download ends in rpm.run which the Fedora
> package manager says it doesn't understand, and I don't blame it,
> neither do I..!

Check it with the file command line tool. It might be an rpm which
they've tagged an extra extension on to stop the server thinking it's
something to do with RealPlayer, or they might have wrapped it in a SEA
shell script because SEAs usually make installing things easier on
Windows and the concept of a package manager has gone over their heads.

Bear in mind that commercial AV vendors have a vested interest in making
sure that there is a strong virus threat out there.

--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: alexd on
Meanwhile, at the uk.comp.os.linux Job Justification Hearings, Ivor Jones
chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> You can't/won't tell me the answer either, then..?
>
> Thanks (not).

Before posting your pissy response, had you considered that chris might not
have known the answer to your question?

What does 'file *rpm.run' say?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx)
22:02:51 up 5 min, 5 users, load average: 0.06, 0.30, 0.16
DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY

From: Robert Billing on
As the bottle floated ashore we opened it and found the message that alexd
had written:

> Meanwhile, at the uk.comp.os.linux Job Justification Hearings, Ivor
> Jones chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> You can't/won't tell me the answer either, then..?
>>
>> Thanks (not).
>
> Before posting your pissy response, had you considered that chris might
> not have known the answer to your question?
>
> What does 'file *rpm.run' say?

Usually .rpm.run is something which, when executed, installs an rpm
withing the encapsulating file. Personally I think that this is a Bad
Thing as it potentially compromises security, but that's what it is.

As well as file you may find that less will show you a few lines of
readable script at the start of the file.

--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and
animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book
as a woman is with child."
Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com