AIT is very very bad. I colocated in their datacenter for about a year, paying $100/month for a verbal agreement of 100 GB bandwidth. There was absolutely no paper record of the 100 GB limit and not verbal record of what charges would apply if I went over. My paper contract with them had explicity voided out the section regarding charges for excessive bandwidth.
One month I received a bill for $6000 citing "excessive" bandwidth. I had used approximately 200 GB of bandwidth, about double my allotted. I called and they assured me it would be fixed. Then the next months bill was $10,000. Their billing system continued to try to draft my credit card.
I finally had to take them to court over the disputed charges. They "waived" the $16,000 right before we entered the courtroom. The eventual settlement came to around $600. These guys are crooks.
"AIT is flat out terrible and possibly the worst service out there."
"I have horror stories about AIT on which I could dwell for hours, but let's just say that AIT's attitude no matter what happens is "punish the customer." They feel free to mess with your stuff whenever they feel like it, change your deal on a whim, and generally suck! Big-time weasels! We are planning a big crew party for after we blow them up; we'll call it "Operation AIT Freedom!"
"When I moved, AIT continued to bill me for "service" on an account that was closed. When I wouldn't pay, they ruined my credit. I could not even talk to credit manager about it. Bad guys!"
""Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to one or more unanswered complaints.""
"They've stolen $900 from me by disk over-usage and fraudulent billing practices."
"AIT systematically stole money from us for months."
These are all from different customers. This company has consistently and systematically screwed their customers.
That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.
But by important concept of our government, checks and balances, congress is ensuring that the public doesn't get screwed by haphazard policies of a single regulatory commission.
Focus on the business in all aspects of software architecture. Period.
If the business is looking long term, devote the time towards a long term, well architected solution.
OTOH, if the business is looking to get bought up within the next quarter, throw together whatever comes to mind and get it out the door ASAP.
It all comes down to conforming to the business plan of your company (or client). As time goes on, you will earn trust and management won't come barking down your throat every time they perceive something to be off schedule.
Tools like Apache Axis and Visual Studio.NET help you with this, because they have these WSDL tools that look at your classes, look at your exposed interfaces, and attempt to generate a WSDL file that can be consumed. With Visual Studio.NET, it's incredibly easy. You add a web reference, aim the web reference at the WSDL, and it creates stub classes for you automatically.
It is even easier with the free.NET SDK:
C:\work>wsdl/nologo http://www.xignite.com/xretirement.asmx?WSDL Writ ing file 'C:\work\XigniteRetirement.cs'.
C:\work>
And also... My fellow Java developer and myself have had zero problems exchanging complex types over web services. There is no problem with XML/SOAP. The problem lies in immature proxy generators. WebSphere Studio Application Developer and the.NET SDK proxy generator have no problems creating compatible complex types, including collections.
A microsoft rep met with us a couple of weeks ago pushing.NET, win2k3, the whole enchilada. He mentioned they have MANY of these languages in development and are due to be released in the next year or so. They will still be pushing C# for mainstream development. The other languages will focus on niches where a modern OO language would be cumbersome.
He wouldn't confirm whether they would have the X# naming convention;)
It is all by design...
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Access modifiers (public, private, protected, internal, etc) are not designed for security! Code access security is intended for this purpose.
With that said, you can still use code access security to prevent access to private members. Access to these members can be only done with reflection classes. The ReflectionPermission can be utilized to prevent code from accessing private members. From the document:
CAUTION Because ReflectionPermission can provide access to private class members and metadata, it is recommended that ReflectionPermission not be granted to Internet code.
This security vulnerability, and the accompanying quick fix, seem to actually enforce Microsoft's touted concept of centralized computing and services.
Think about it, with a company like Microsoft, there is no doubt vulnerabilities will exist. If this was a distributed product we would still have script kiddies years from now drilling on this exploit. Now that it is a centralized service, it has been fixed in one place before any substantial damage has been done. -- Which evil do you want today?
I seriously doubt extranneous DNS queries rate in the top 10, or hell, even top 100, of culprits of network inefficiency. The fact that it only takes 13 of these servers to keep the entire internet afloat should be a testament to the efficiency of the protocol.
so obviously it is critical to totally reform the DNS implementation as it exists today. maybe if we free up some traffic, we can look towards more important things... like defending the right for some little prick to be KaZaaing half of the music released in the last 15 years across 2 oceans with it ending up in some 3rd world chinese province where it is pressed into 2 gazillion cds and sold to some guy who has never paid more than 5 cents for something in his whole damn life. geez, I gotta get off this site;)
Considering the significant financial muscle of Yahoo and Overture, I hope that Google can continue to maintain their lead.
This sure seems like a stupid thing to hope for.
As has been said before, the reliance on Google really scares the hell outta me. Yeah, Google is great now, but shit happens, and shit happening to Google would really ruin me. Half my job security is based on scavenging for answers!
Since no one else seems to be able to compete with them, maybe in the spirit of competition we could talk Google into spining off an Anti-Google?
Nept points to this interesting Microsoft-funded.NET obfuscation project
obsfuscation?!?!?!? thats a big word. and it sounds very very bad. Oh, the misery!
NO, really, this is one of the most pathetic attempts I have ever seen to rile up the slashdot drones to something they know absolutely nothing about.
Now lets get to the point. By nature, the CLR compilers do very little to obscure the source logic when compiling into Intermediate Language (binaries). Any.NET assembly I have ever produced can be easily decompiled to near exact original source. If you don't believe me (and this is for you,.NET developers), try this. That thing scared the shit out of me the first time it disected one of my pet projects into line by line C#. In my opinion this is a major issue that I am very surprised hasn't bought itself a front page slashdot story (or maybe I just wasn't reading that day).
Microsoft trying to find an obsfucation technique or algorithm is comparable to them patching a gaping security hole. Yeah, maybe the hole shouldn't have been there to begin with, but it sure needs to be fixed.
And no, fixing this issue this is separate from there plans to take over the world as we know it;).
Re:How am I suppose to put this...
on
Cashless Society
·
· Score: 1
I figured you would just swipe it through her... umm... slot?
"The proposed protocol is free from deadlock and livelock, and seeks to effectively exploit the available alternative resource co-allocation schemes through parallelization of requests for required resources,"
This article is useless. This quote is the only information that is remotely informative in the entire article.
And to get to my point, the management of resource access is hardly the job of the protocol. It is the job of the underlying web Service implementation to deal with these issues. Why should the protocol even have knowledge of the the resource state?
Are you guys aware that companies besides Microsoft are charging for backend server software? Microsoft licensing fees are chump change compared to what it costs to establish a IBM, Sun, or Oracle platform. Each one of the aforementioned corporations each have more market share that Microsoft in their stronger areas.
In fact, in the server arena, Microsoft can be seen as the little guy trying to catch up to these other galiants.
So why is everyone gunning for Microsoft? Are you *scared*?
I looked through the ASP source used for this article and it is absolute spagetti. I hope this page does not represent most of the ASP out there on the web. No wonder these guys only got 49 req/sec.
As an experienced ASP programmer I can confidently say that I could get better performance than these guys with only half the hardware and the same functionality.
I am thoroughly disgusted. I am not familiar with any of the other scripting languages that were evaluated, therefore I cannot comment on the source used. If the source looks anything like this ASP, I would take these performance results with a grain of salt.
This whole business with emulation is very interesting, but I fail to see where this will fit into the current marketplace.
When I need to run an x86 OS, I'll buy an x86 chip. When I need IA-64, I'll buy an IA-64 chip. The people who are buying these things for future compatabilty are the ones that baffle me. If the Crusoe can't even keep up with current IA-32 architectures, how is it going to keep up with Merced and its successors?
Why doesn't Transmeta just focus their efforts into producing a native x86 chip? or a native IA-64 chip? Who the hell needs one chip to do both? Certainly not the average road warrior that runs Win98/WinNT/Linux. This is the demographic that the Crusoe is targeted at.
Slashdot Mirror
AIT is very very bad. I colocated in their datacenter for about a year, paying $100/month for a verbal agreement of 100 GB bandwidth. There was absolutely no paper record of the 100 GB limit and not verbal record of what charges would apply if I went over. My paper contract with them had explicity voided out the section regarding charges for excessive bandwidth.
s .html
One month I received a bill for $6000 citing "excessive" bandwidth. I had used approximately 200 GB of bandwidth, about double my allotted. I called and they assured me it would be fixed. Then the next months bill was $10,000. Their billing system continued to try to draft my credit card.
I finally had to take them to court over the disputed charges. They "waived" the $16,000 right before we entered the courtroom. The eventual settlement came to around $600. These guys are crooks.
http://www.webhostingratings.com/plans/AIT-Review
"AIT is flat out terrible and possibly the worst service out there."
"I have horror stories about AIT on which I could dwell for hours, but let's just say that AIT's attitude no matter what happens is "punish the customer." They feel free to mess with your stuff whenever they feel like it, change your deal on a whim, and generally suck! Big-time weasels! We are planning a big crew party for after we blow them up; we'll call it "Operation AIT Freedom!"
"When I moved, AIT continued to bill me for "service" on an account that was closed. When I wouldn't pay, they ruined my credit. I could not even talk to credit manager about it. Bad guys!"
""Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to one or more unanswered complaints.""
"They've stolen $900 from me by disk over-usage and fraudulent billing practices."
"AIT systematically stole money from us for months."
These are all from different customers. This company has consistently and systematically screwed their customers.
Focus on the business in all aspects of software architecture. Period.
If the business is looking long term, devote the time towards a long term, well architected solution.
OTOH, if the business is looking to get bought up within the next quarter, throw together whatever comes to mind and get it out the door ASAP.
It all comes down to conforming to the business plan of your company (or client). As time goes on, you will earn trust and management won't come barking down your throat every time they perceive something to be off schedule.
And also... My fellow Java developer and myself have had zero problems exchanging complex types over web services. There is no problem with XML/SOAP. The problem lies in immature proxy generators. WebSphere Studio Application Developer and the
A microsoft rep met with us a couple of weeks ago pushing .NET, win2k3, the whole enchilada. He mentioned they have MANY of these languages in development and are due to be released in the next year or so. They will still be pushing C# for mainstream development. The other languages will focus on niches where a modern OO language would be cumbersome.
;)
He wouldn't confirm whether they would have the X# naming convention
This security vulnerability, and the accompanying quick fix, seem to actually enforce Microsoft's touted concept of centralized computing and services.
Think about it, with a company like Microsoft, there is no doubt vulnerabilities will exist. If this was a distributed product we would still have script kiddies years from now drilling on this exploit. Now that it is a centralized service, it has been fixed in one place before any substantial damage has been done. -- Which evil do you want today?
no, with C# they just have to caste explicitly
runtime lawsuits resulting from implicit castes are a thing of the past.
not sure what a Bxploit is, but it sounds a lot like an exploit.
The security flaw mentioned is a Denial of Service vulnerability. This flaw does NOT allow exploit of the system.
I seriously doubt extranneous DNS queries rate in the top 10, or hell, even top 100, of culprits of network inefficiency. The fact that it only takes 13 of these servers to keep the entire internet afloat should be a testament to the efficiency of the protocol.
so obviously it is critical to totally reform the DNS implementation as it exists today. maybe if we free up some traffic, we can look towards more important things... like defending the right for some little prick to be KaZaaing half of the music released in the last 15 years across 2 oceans with it ending up in some 3rd world chinese province where it is pressed into 2 gazillion cds and sold to some guy who has never paid more than 5 cents for something in his whole damn life. geez, I gotta get off this site
This sure seems like a stupid thing to hope for.
As has been said before, the reliance on Google really scares the hell outta me. Yeah, Google is great now, but shit happens, and shit happening to Google would really ruin me. Half my job security is based on scavenging for answers!
Since no one else seems to be able to compete with them, maybe in the spirit of competition we could talk Google into spining off an Anti-Google?
ooo, ooo, ooo, please tell me! obsfuscation?!?!?!? thats a big word. and it sounds very very bad. Oh, the misery!
NO, really, this is one of the most pathetic attempts I have ever seen to rile up the slashdot drones to something they know absolutely nothing about.
Now lets get to the point. By nature, the CLR compilers do very little to obscure the source logic when compiling into Intermediate Language (binaries). Any
Microsoft trying to find an obsfucation technique or algorithm is comparable to them patching a gaping security hole. Yeah, maybe the hole shouldn't have been there to begin with, but it sure needs to be fixed.
And no, fixing this issue this is separate from there plans to take over the world as we know it
I figured you would just swipe it through her... umm... slot?
on second thought, I'll stick with cash!
This article is useless. This quote is the only information that is remotely informative in the entire article.
And to get to my point, the management of resource access is hardly the job of the protocol. It is the job of the underlying web Service implementation to deal with these issues. Why should the protocol even have knowledge of the the resource state?
This statement in no way answers the question that the author originally poses:
Moving
Check out Cassini Web Server for more info.
Are you guys aware that companies besides Microsoft are charging for backend server software? Microsoft licensing fees are chump change compared to what it costs to establish a IBM, Sun, or Oracle platform. Each one of the aforementioned corporations each have more market share that Microsoft in their stronger areas.
In fact, in the server arena, Microsoft can be seen as the little guy trying to catch up to these other galiants.
So why is everyone gunning for Microsoft? Are you *scared*?
I looked through the ASP source used for this article and it is absolute spagetti. I hope this page does not represent most of the ASP out there on the web. No wonder these guys only got 49 req/sec. As an experienced ASP programmer I can confidently say that I could get better performance than these guys with only half the hardware and the same functionality. I am thoroughly disgusted. I am not familiar with any of the other scripting languages that were evaluated, therefore I cannot comment on the source used. If the source looks anything like this ASP, I would take these performance results with a grain of salt.
This whole business with emulation is very interesting, but I fail to see where this will fit into the current marketplace. When I need to run an x86 OS, I'll buy an x86 chip. When I need IA-64, I'll buy an IA-64 chip. The people who are buying these things for future compatabilty are the ones that baffle me. If the Crusoe can't even keep up with current IA-32 architectures, how is it going to keep up with Merced and its successors? Why doesn't Transmeta just focus their efforts into producing a native x86 chip? or a native IA-64 chip? Who the hell needs one chip to do both? Certainly not the average road warrior that runs Win98/WinNT/Linux. This is the demographic that the Crusoe is targeted at.