Subject Re: [ib-support] Why fbembed.dll ?
Author Boguslaw Brandys
Hello,


> 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."

Yes. But user always "has right" ;-) and it's difficult to explain over and
over again.

> > - 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]


Maybe I misreported something, but is a simple solution (like switch in
firebird.conf) to forbid remote outside connection (from Internet) to such
server ?

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

Of course.

> >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.

But any freeware replication engine ?
Boguslaw