On 7 May 2003 at 12:00, Boguslaw Brandys wrote:

>Against installing "normal" (full) server on Win98 machine:
>- user could always shutdown server becouse he don't like Guardian
>or server icon on system tray

:(((( Well-known situation. And very sad one.
I may be a bit bold or rough, but I say: "If user is so stupid to
shutdown necessary service, keep him (her) away."

> - somebody could connect to such server throught TCP/IP

So, there is a kind of local network on client side? Or you mean
something like that:

[client comp] --- >>I-net<< --- [server comp]

In this case a malefactor can connect to the main server as well.

>If Guardian or server icon could be hidden and server maintenance
>moved for example into Control Panel (in Win98 of course , in WinNT/XP
>service is almost perfect solution) and if there will be a solution to
>not allow others to connect to server throught TCP/IP it will be
>sufficient for me (firewall is not accepted solution due to troubles
>in configuration)

Well... I'm not sure if this work, but if you run server as

fbserver -a -n -w

then there will be no icon on systray and only NamedPipes is incoming
protocol (doesn't work under Win9X). If xnet (new local protocol)
works, you can use -x instead of -w. In this case only xnet will be
available. Ask Dmitry Yemanov for more information.
Unfortunatelly, there is no switch to turn on only local protocol.

>> bandwidth channel... I'd recommend full (or application-depended
>> partial) replication to local workgroup server.
>
>Remote database is over very-very low bandwidth channel (modem
>connection) , but the main problem are costs.

Then I'd choose replication. Well-implemented replication can use E-
mail and even snake-mail.

SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.