I thought this was supposed to be a review of CVS in a Nutshell. Instead it appears to be a review of O'Reilly's CVS Pocket Reference. All the time I've been waiting for a *real* O'Reilly reference on CVS, and this just dashed my hopes. Can anyone suggest a good, comprehensive CVS reference text?
Win98 does run something akin to services. As one of the other persons replying mentions, Win98 offers file and print sharing via NetBIOS. This "service" utilizes the SMB (server message block) protocol. Samba was built to replicate that Windows functionality for *nix, not t'other way 'round. And yes, Windows 9x by default does use SHARE level permissions by default, but it can be set to use a password server for share authentication, commonly known as USER level security in Windows. USER level is obviously much better than SHARE, because USER at least makes a half-hearted effort to authenticate against a central security provider. SHARE level security is like tying a piece of string through a latch and hoping no one will be able to break in. I have to say, though, that anyone depending upon Windows 9x for any type of real security needs to see a specialist. Despite the hype, FUD, and general ballyhooing that Microsoft does, they still can't make a reasonable case that their OSes are or ever have been secure. But then, hey, predictable ISN's are probably the least of their worries these days...
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was supposed to be a review of CVS in a Nutshell. Instead it appears to be a review of O'Reilly's CVS Pocket Reference. All the time I've been waiting for a *real* O'Reilly reference on CVS, and this just dashed my hopes. Can anyone suggest a good, comprehensive CVS reference text?
You might want to check out the X86-64 project for a good read and lots of info about where Sledgehammer (now commonly known only as Hammer) is going.
Win98 does run something akin to services. As one of the other persons replying mentions, Win98 offers file and print sharing via NetBIOS. This "service" utilizes the SMB (server message block) protocol. Samba was built to replicate that Windows functionality for *nix, not t'other way 'round. And yes, Windows 9x by default does use SHARE level permissions by default, but it can be set to use a password server for share authentication, commonly known as USER level security in Windows. USER level is obviously much better than SHARE, because USER at least makes a half-hearted effort to authenticate against a central security provider. SHARE level security is like tying a piece of string through a latch and hoping no one will be able to break in. I have to say, though, that anyone depending upon Windows 9x for any type of real security needs to see a specialist. Despite the hype, FUD, and general ballyhooing that Microsoft does, they still can't make a reasonable case that their OSes are or ever have been secure. But then, hey, predictable ISN's are probably the least of their worries these days...