Mr. Strockbine wrote:
is there a way to password protect a directory?
for instance there is a single ftp account on
a machine (one user-id/password combo) and its
shared amoung several users. Is it possible for
one user to password protect a directory so the
other users cannot view
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
kmself If you're looking at single-user work, my understanding is
kmself that the licensing stuff doesn't really kick in. Though
kmself single-user BitKeeper is a bit like having a one-seat
kmself arena. It pretty much defeats the
on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:28:59PM +1100, Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
kmself If you're looking at single-user work, my understanding is
kmself that the licensing stuff doesn't really kick in. Though
kmself single-user
%% Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bm I think the point I am trying to make, is that this information
bm which gets logged is only going to cause confusion, created in an
bm unscalable manner (ie. what happens if two projects happen to have
bm the same name?), and doesn't benefit
%% Brendan Cully [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is BitKeeper? Is it DFSG? What are the benefits of it over CVS
for more complex organisations?
bc It's Larry McVoy's source management system, which he has been pushing
bc on linux-kernel for quite some time, and which does sound nice.
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
kmself http://www.bitkeeper.com/
Thanks for this...
kmself BitKeeper is a scalable configuration management system,
kmself supporting globally distributed development, disconnected
kmself operation, compressed repositories, change
Paul == Paul D Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul With BitKeeper you get the source, you can modify the
Paul source, and you can freely distribute the
Paul modifications--with two caveats. The first is that all
Paul modified source you distribute must still pass their
Paul
%% Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bm which restricts what you are allowed to modify...
Indeed. As I said, no one is claiming it's DFSG-compliant.
However, you _can_ modify almost all the code. That is, you can fix
bugs, add new features, etc. You just can't change that one area.
on Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 06:57:19PM +1100, Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
- I currently use CVS for projects that aren't open-source (eg. my
Thesis, in LaTeX format), that aren't really commercial (I never
intend to make any money from it),
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 05:51:39PM -0800, Shandar Ahmad wrote:
changing permissions to 000 effetively protects a
directory.
Nifty ! 'chmod 000' ... this does ring bells !
AFAIK chmod 000 effectively removes all r, w and x
permissions for that directory. The ls command and
programs like mc
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:39:58PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
http://www.bitkeeper.com/
BitKeeper is a scalable configuration management system, supporting
globally distributed development, disconnected operation, compressed
repositories, change sets, and named lines of development
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
kmself Where n 0 people need modification access to the same
kmself data, a version control system should be implemented. RCS
kmself and CVS are available on Debian and their use is fairly
kmself transparent. For more complex
On Monday, 30 October 2000 at 09:00, Brian May wrote:
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
kmself Where n 0 people need modification access to the same
kmself data, a version control system should be implemented. RCS
kmself and CVS are available on Debian and their
on Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 09:00:00AM +1100, Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
kmself == kmself kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
kmself Where n 0 people need modification access to the same
kmself data, a version control system should be implemented. RCS
kmself and CVS are
changing permissions to 000 effetively protects a
directory. You might even want to do a chown to a
dummy user for this purpose.
Shandar
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
is there a way to password protect a directory?
for instance there is a single ftp account on
a machine (one user-id/password combo) and its
shared amoung several users. Is it possible for
one user to password protect a directory so the
other users cannot view the contents?
- greg s.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 10:12:27PM -0700, Mr. Strockbine wrote:
is there a way to password protect a directory?
for instance there is a single ftp account on
a machine (one user-id/password combo) and its
shared amoung several users. Is it possible for
one user to password protect
on Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 10:41:10PM -0800, Ethan Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 10:12:27PM -0700, Mr. Strockbine wrote:
is there a way to password protect a directory? for instance there
is a single ftp account on a machine (one user-id/password combo)
and its
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:12:27 -0700, Mr. Strockbine wrote:
is there a way to password protect a directory? [ ... ]
The UNIX security model hasn't traditionally worked like this. The other
replies have
some good ideas on how to implement the same things along traditional UNIX
lines.
This raises
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 10:12:27PM -0700, Mr. Strockbine wrote:
is there a way to password protect a directory?
for instance there is a single ftp account on
a machine (one user-id/password combo) and its
shared amoung several users. Is it possible for
one user to password protect
20 matches
Mail list logo
