What is the fundamental difference with the "cluster version" of Windows? OS X clusters just fine and there are no "special editions" other than a few software additions that hardly count as a different OS. And Linux requires very little to get it in a cluster compute configuration.
By this first statement, it's obvious you're clueless about Windows and OS X. The normal version of Windows Server clusters just fine, too. This is a stripped-down, lower-cost version specifically for clustering.
OS X doesn't cluster fine. Try it in any serious capacity. Ok, I'm wrong. OS X clusters just fine... if you dump a lot of money into Apple support contracts and have a bunch of Apple engineers handy at your site to tweak and duct tape your cluster.
Wow. When you compare this to the standard capability of OS X, it seems like a real rip off. You get reduced functionality. Why?
Because it's cheaper, duh.
Then why not use Linux?
Because many of us outside of SlashdotLand think Linux is a clusterfsck.
Says who? It certainly is/will be easier but more secure is something that has yet to be proven. To date, the track record is not impressive.
Uhm what? To which imaginary.NET track record are you referring? Stop making FUD up.
Seriously, Microsoft. Please come up with some innovative features and give us something that no other vendor offers or in a package so slick that we cannot help ourselves, but to purchase the Microsoft solution
Why should they bother? You're so bigoted against them that you make uneducated and incorrect comments, and just plain make up stuff to sour Microsoft.
I've created a multicast protocol based on a layer 1 12ga Mossberg, using Winchester Birdshot for Layer 2 communications. While a bit too chatty, it is quite effective at stopping hax0rz.
It was included with Windows XP SP2. It's also in the soon-to-be-released SP1 for Windows Server 2003.
It appears that if the hardware doesn't support DEP, it will enable some sort of software DEP, instead.
W2K3 SP! also includes a new, XPSP2-like firewall interface with some nice logging and an easy-to-use rules interface. There's also the new Security Configuration Wizard, which seems to do a pretty damned good job of really locking down 2003 for those that need it.
Slashdotians use the term "admit" as if Microsoft is guilty of something. They are simply preventing those are are not running Windows according to the agreed-upon EULA from accessing their resources and using their bandwidth. What happened to Microsoft's IP rights?
Why should Microsoft allow WINE users, who either don't possess a valid copy of Windows, or who are breaking Microsoft's EULA, to leech resources (server/bandwidth) from them?
Your money goes a lot further out of town, so you can spend more on gadgets, and since they're indoor types anyway, it's ideal.
Uhm, since places like The Dalles aren't bristling with Best Buys and Fry's (which would charge the same price they charge anywhere else), people tend to order stuff online, where it's the same price everywhere.
Yes, I'm sure. But I'm not of the school which believes that *everything* needs to be OOP.
But anything medium or large-scale SHOULD be object-oriented. No one said everything needs to be object oriented. Even in OOP usually, most of your method contents are essentially structured programming.
Anyway, PHP also supports object subclassing (extends keyword) so this is a moot point.
PHP first had some sort of OO in v4. And by almost everyone's standards it was poorly implemented. It had been duct-taped on. Even the PHP developers themselves concede this:
http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/10007
It still isn't fully OOP, although PHP 5 seems to be getting closer and in the right ways.
PHP is a great quick-and-dirty language for pumping out quick hacks/apps. I use it all the time.
Unfortunately, it's plagued by poor design fundamentals, including their crappy pseudo-OO and their poor security (allow anyone to overwrite arbitrary variables by inserting data into the url strings of php apps, anyone?).
If you were trying to convince me of ASP.NET's superiority, surely you could have found a better example?
Do it in PHP in as few lines of code. Do it and show me. In fact, amaze me with anything in PHP.
it's use necessitates the usage of IIS and Windows Server,
*cough* Mono. Yes, it's ready for primetime. Don't let your hatred for Microsoft bias you against a great technology. This is bigger than Microsoft now.
neither of which I'm comfortable using, given Microsoft's history of security breaches, restrictive licensing policies, etc.
This is funny, yet you use and advocate the use of PHP, one of the most poorly designed and insecure development environments there is. It's certainly much more insecure and shoddy than ASP.NET. If you're unfamiliar with PHP's history, 1.) god, who's hiring you? and 2.) take a look at the results:
Of course I knew about maxRequestLength. I can use Google. You must have a funny definition of "works fine". Mine doesn't include "takes far too long and leaks hundreds of megabytes of memory on the server". You must have a lot of RAM on your machine if you didn't notice the gobs of it being chewed up and spat on the floor. As the files get even larger, the problem gets worse exponentially as Windows starts swapping. The same task can be done by other systems using very little RAM (the used RAM does not need to be proportional to the file size). It's basically not possible to fix it unless you go to third-party products.
It doesn't leak here. I'm using ASP.NET 1.1.4.
Of course, the uploaded file will be stored in RAM until completion, and you should have a lot of RAM if you're planning to do such large-scale tasks. But yeah, no leaks and it does "work fine".
Maybe you have conflicting versions of glib... oh wait, wrong OS nightmare.
OK, in all my searches about ASP.NET, I never once ran into that page; and while manually browsing through the literally hundreds of MSDN magazine back articles relating to ASP.NET it is easy to miss, especially with such a generic name.
I found it in an afternoon, back when I was first learning ASP.NET.
You say "generic", I say "simple". Now you're proposing they should have given it a more complicated name?!
Hard-to-find documentation is just as bad as no documentation.
It's not hard to find. It took me less than 10 seconds to find via MSDN's search for pasting into the last comment. 10 seconds.
That article should be announced with trumpets in the API docs for relevant classes (Page, for example). As it is, the API docs contain very little of that information, and no link to that article.
The API documentation does what it does perfectly. (I assume you meant the documentation that specifically describes objects and their methods, properties and fields.)
Articles on basic programming principles and theory DO NOT belong in API documentation. This is what MSDN is for: a collection of documentation libraries, whitepapers, and discussions.
Again, you blame your ignorance on Microsoft, whereas every other ASP.NET coder is thoroughly familiar with MSDN and the (perhaps over-)abundance of documentation. Don't you find this odd? No one else has problems finding documentation.
I still maintain that the API is badly designed, with objects changing under you all the time and/or not responding to your commands. It doesn't have to be that way.
Such as? Give some examples. I've never run into these issues and I do some pretty advanced-level stuff. Don't just toss out blanket statements, it makes you look reactionary.
I assume you prefer the oh-so-robust PHP, with its absolutely moronic "allow anyone to store arbitrary variables in the url string" design flaw. Just one of many laughable design flaws.
PHP was never designed to be truly object-oriented, and now they're trying to tack OOP on, and they're not doing a very good job. Even 5.0 still isn't truly object-oriented. They're just glorified structs/associative arrays.
Of course, but benefit does subclassing an ASP.NET control give me than doing it my way to begin with?
Well, the benefits of subclassing are day 1 lessons in OOP. But to rehash, subclassing allows you to add additional functionality to existing objects so that you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
And excellent example of subclassing a Calendar web control in ASP.NET is at:
http://www.maricopa.gov/EventsCalendarFull.aspx? da te=2/16/2005
And then I get the warm fuzzy feeling from tying my code to a propreitary platform? No thanks.
Oh, you're one of those bigots who doesn't let silly stuff like technological superiority get in the way.
Well, you'll be happy to know that the Mono project's ASP.NET implementation is fairly solid, and getting more solid by the week. So, even you open source bigots have something to use.
I said *large* file. Have you tried it? Actually I know you haven't because otherwise you wouldn't be posting that code. Please try uploading a 100 MB file to that page and then get back to me.
I'm getting back to you. Yes, I have tried it and it works fine.
You need to up the value in "maxRequestLength" in your web.config file under the httpRuntime section. You may have to add it manually, as its probably being inherited from your server.config file.
It's set to something like 4mb by default. Why? Because of buffers. ASP.NET doesn't want to waste memory if it doesn't have to, so it sets a low limit by default.
You should try Google, it works wonders: http://www.google.com/search?q=asp.net+u ploading+l arge+files
Consequently, you can use the same search string at that oh-so-poorly-documented MSDN site, and read the first first result which pops up.
You can find more information here (the first result from the above Google search.) http://www.dotnetspider.com/technology/k bpages/111 8.aspx
(And yes, I do need the capability to upload 100 MB files; don't try to rationalize ASP.NET's problems away by saying that's stupid or unimportant.)
The documentation *is* quite weak on specifying when you can and can't set certain properties of objects on a page. Telling me that MSDN exists (duh!) doesn't prove me wrong.
Oh so poorly documented on MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.a sp?url=/library/en-us/dnaspp/html/aspnet-pageobjectmodel. asp
Furthermore, the fact that setting many properties can silently fail, or the fact that properties you just read can change unexpectedly due to this complexity is just bad API design, even if there was excellent documentation.
Ever heard of conditional checking? Private variables? Callbacks? Do you even know how to implement properties? (hint: it's not private string foo)
Consider yourself owned. Don't blame your ASP.NET ignorance on bs.
It is horrible when you're trying to do something moderately complex (uploading large files, for one exmaple of many) and you have to become inimately familiar with a huge chunk of a huge complex class structure in order to make it do what you want (if it's even possible).
Yeah, because Googling for "asp.net file uploading" and getting 100,000 results is hard.
Sub Upload_Click(Sender as Object, e as EventArgs)
' Display properties of the uploaded file
FileName.InnerHtml = MyFile.PostedFile.FileName
FileContent.InnerHtml = MyFile.PostedFile.ContentType
FileSize.InnerHtml = MyFile.PostedFile.ContentLength
UploadDetails.visible = True
'Grab the file name from its fully qualified path at client
Dim strFileName as string = MyFile.PostedFile.FileName
' only the attched file name not its path
Dim c as string = System.IO.Path.GetFileName(strFileName)
'Save uploaded file to server at C:\ServerFolder\
Try
MyFile.PostedFile.SaveAs("C:\ServerFolder\" + c)
Span1.InnerHtml = "Your File Uploaded Sucessfully at server as: " & _
"C:\ServerFolder\" & c
Catch Exp as exception
Span1.InnerHtml = "An Error occured. Please check the attached file"
UploadDetails.visible = false
Span2.visible=false
End Try End Sub
Wow, look at that "huge complex class structure". Heh.
Or you get caught in an issue that depends on the order in which things are initialized, so you set properties of objects on your page which later get overwritten and you can't figure out why. (The documentation is not very helpful here, and these problems are common because many things in ASP.NET depend on order of initialization).
Uhm, there's plenty of documentation on this at http://msdn.microsoft.com and http://asp.net.
Don't blame Microsoft because you won't read any documentation or the first two chapters out of an ASP.NET book.
Ahh, uhmm, what makes you think we want to get closer to asp.net ?
I don't expect you to, because you sound like a bigot. You probably don't have the slightest clue about ASP.NET and think its just like ASP with a new extension tagged onto it.
You know, being the opposite is just as useless.
Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I'm apparently a "Microsoft fanatic" because I give them a fair shake.
Sorry, but my main machine is a G5 running OS X, so suck it.
Yup, and who made Novell up in knots not that long ago ? Whatever you say sir.
"made Novell up in knots"? AD killed Novell, because Microsoft gave customers what they wanted and undercut Novell doing so. Microsoft has always done its best when it has serious competition.
That, for one, could happen if your users had so much rights on those machines as my neighbor 90 year old ma... rambling cut out... it almost safe, that is safe until some of those users will open a beautiful e-mail in her outlook.
The guy was talking about platform strategies, not just home users, specifically.
If you're a home user, you turn on Automatic Updates, install Microsoft Antispyware, and install AV software and you get the same benefits. Wow. That's fucking hard.
No it doesn't. It means turning on Automatic Updates, which does the same thing for smaller environments. Hell, if you're super lazy, you can even have them automatically install at a given time.
1.) Thanks Martin for participating in this interview. Not all of us readers are mindless Linux drones.
2.) Reading the phone interview verbatim is really hard. I much prefer the email interviews, or an edited text from the phone interview, or at least the appropriate use of punctuation. The interview was very hard to parse, Roblimo.
3.) To all the folks who complain that Windows is hard to protect against malware: you're clueless.
Here's how you keep your network safe:
1. Install and properly configure a firewall.
1a. Maybe install a web proxy server that blocks access to spyware/malware sites.
2. Create an AD domain
3. Join your clients to the AD domain
4. Install Software Update Services
5. Configure all clients to update off of your SUS server via GPOs
6. Install anti-spyware software via GPOs
These steps are not hard, and provide for stellar enterprise management capabilities.
On a network of over 5,000 machines, we have had exactly ONE (1, uno, etc) problem, and that problem was on a rogue machine (a personal laptop) and employee plugged into our network.
4.) The Slammer/Blaster/FooFoo were released a great deal of time after Microsoft released a security patch for the problem. Most of the time, these things infected machines that were heavily unpatched.
5.) Yes, Microsoft's software is still too bloated, too complex, too insecure and too extensible, but they're seeing the big picture. They're getting better, getting smarter.
Look at Windows Server 2003, look at IIS 6.0 (which stomps on Apache imho, something I never thought I'd say)
Most of the naysayers hate Microsoft so much, they'll blather any lie about them. They hate MS so much they don't even know the products in-depth themselves, recycling garbage from the Win95/Office 2000 days. Please, just STFU.
While you all are bitching and spreading FUD, Microsoft is slowly and quietly getting better and better. They're watching OSS and learning.
Where's your enterprise directory? (don't even start on about Novell, nor OpenLDAP)
Where's your web development environment that even comes close to ASP.NET? (don't say PHP, it isn't. don't say Mono, they're far from MS's ASP.NET implementation, although Mono rocks bigtime)
You're behind the curve, and getting farther behind by yapping and attacking.
Last I heard, Google is an American company. If Orkut is a popular website for those who's government oppresses their natural rights to free speech, so be it.
The idea that any government has cotnrol over a person's thoughts is utterly ridiculous.
Keep in mind that "hate and racism" is covered by the first amendment, no matter how tasteless. These people have a right to what they're doing and thinking.
I worry that this recent witch hunt trend against racist movements will supercede the country's recognition of the Constitution.
These people have a right to their thoughts and ideas as long as they aren't harming others, killing, assaulting, etc.
If you want to properly combat these people, you are going to have to listen to their concerns. I believe that they have legitimate concerns that are skewed by blanket ideology and a fascination with nazism and ephemera. Shunning them only makes them stronger.
Diversity counselors are well-versed in this, as they're always lecturing us about this shit, but seem unwilling when the tables are turned.
You know no hell until you use the goatse site as a test url in development and forget to take it out when the code goes live, and a user and then your boss find out before you do.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the fundamental difference with the "cluster version" of Windows? OS X clusters just fine and there are no "special editions" other than a few software additions that hardly count as a different OS. And Linux requires very little to get it in a cluster compute configuration.
.NET track record are you referring? Stop making FUD up.
By this first statement, it's obvious you're clueless about Windows and OS X. The normal version of Windows Server clusters just fine, too. This is a stripped-down, lower-cost version specifically for clustering.
OS X doesn't cluster fine. Try it in any serious capacity. Ok, I'm wrong. OS X clusters just fine... if you dump a lot of money into Apple support contracts and have a bunch of Apple engineers handy at your site to tweak and duct tape your cluster.
Wow. When you compare this to the standard capability of OS X, it seems like a real rip off. You get reduced functionality. Why?
Because it's cheaper, duh.
Then why not use Linux?
Because many of us outside of SlashdotLand think Linux is a clusterfsck.
Says who? It certainly is/will be easier but more secure is something that has yet to be proven. To date, the track record is not impressive.
Uhm what? To which imaginary
Seriously, Microsoft. Please come up with some innovative features and give us something that no other vendor offers or in a package so slick that we cannot help ourselves, but to purchase the Microsoft solution
Why should they bother? You're so bigoted against them that you make uneducated and incorrect comments, and just plain make up stuff to sour Microsoft.
He becomes a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
Will Bill and Ted be presenting?
I've created a multicast protocol based on a layer 1 12ga Mossberg, using Winchester Birdshot for Layer 2 communications. While a bit too chatty, it is quite effective at stopping hax0rz.
It was included with Windows XP SP2. It's also in the soon-to-be-released SP1 for Windows Server 2003.
It appears that if the hardware doesn't support DEP, it will enable some sort of software DEP, instead.
W2K3 SP! also includes a new, XPSP2-like firewall interface with some nice logging and an easy-to-use rules interface. There's also the new Security Configuration Wizard, which seems to do a pretty damned good job of really locking down 2003 for those that need it.
I have Microsoft Antispyware installed on several of my machines. All of them also have Firefox and none detect Firefox as spyware.
I think you've been duped by some misguided zealot.
Sorry, it's still and End User License Agreement.
Gee, following that logic that means I can go buy a copy of Linux at Borders and utilize the source in my proprietary product with impunity.
Good thinking!
Slashdotians use the term "admit" as if Microsoft is guilty of something. They are simply preventing those are are not running Windows according to the agreed-upon EULA from accessing their resources and using their bandwidth. What happened to Microsoft's IP rights?
Why should Microsoft allow WINE users, who either don't possess a valid copy of Windows, or who are breaking Microsoft's EULA, to leech resources (server/bandwidth) from them?
My mind boggles that this is even being debated.
Your money goes a lot further out of town, so you can spend more on gadgets, and since they're indoor types anyway, it's ideal.
Uhm, since places like The Dalles aren't bristling with Best Buys and Fry's (which would charge the same price they charge anywhere else), people tend to order stuff online, where it's the same price everywhere.
Yes, I'm sure. But I'm not of the school which believes that *everything* needs to be OOP.
a ws
But anything medium or large-scale SHOULD be object-oriented. No one said everything needs to be object oriented. Even in OOP usually, most of your method contents are essentially structured programming.
Anyway, PHP also supports object subclassing (extends keyword) so this is a moot point.
PHP first had some sort of OO in v4. And by almost everyone's standards it was poorly implemented. It had been duct-taped on. Even the PHP developers themselves concede this:
http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/10007
It still isn't fully OOP, although PHP 5 seems to be getting closer and in the right ways.
PHP is a great quick-and-dirty language for pumping out quick hacks/apps. I use it all the time.
Unfortunately, it's plagued by poor design fundamentals, including their crappy pseudo-OO and their poor security (allow anyone to overwrite arbitrary variables by inserting data into the url strings of php apps, anyone?).
If you were trying to convince me of ASP.NET's superiority, surely you could have found a better example?
Do it in PHP in as few lines of code. Do it and show me. In fact, amaze me with anything in PHP.
it's use necessitates the usage of IIS and Windows Server,
*cough* Mono. Yes, it's ready for primetime. Don't let your hatred for Microsoft bias you against a great technology. This is bigger than Microsoft now.
neither of which I'm comfortable using, given Microsoft's history of security breaches, restrictive licensing policies, etc.
This is funny, yet you use and advocate the use of PHP, one of the most poorly designed and insecure development environments there is. It's certainly much more insecure and shoddy than ASP.NET. If you're unfamiliar with PHP's history, 1.) god, who's hiring you? and 2.) take a look at the results:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=php+security+fl
In effect, there would have to be a huge incentive for me to consider recommending it to a client.
I assume you must service mom-and-pop shops. If not, what do you recommend to clients who have medium/large web app development requirements?
Of course I knew about maxRequestLength. I can use Google. You must have a funny definition of "works fine". Mine doesn't include "takes far too long and leaks hundreds of megabytes of memory on the server". You must have a lot of RAM on your machine if you didn't notice the gobs of it being chewed up and spat on the floor. As the files get even larger, the problem gets worse exponentially as Windows starts swapping. The same task can be done by other systems using very little RAM (the used RAM does not need to be proportional to the file size). It's basically not possible to fix it unless you go to third-party products.
It doesn't leak here. I'm using ASP.NET 1.1.4.
Of course, the uploaded file will be stored in RAM until completion, and you should have a lot of RAM if you're planning to do such large-scale tasks. But yeah, no leaks and it does "work fine".
Maybe you have conflicting versions of glib... oh wait, wrong OS nightmare.
OK, in all my searches about ASP.NET, I never once ran into that page; and while manually browsing through the literally hundreds of MSDN magazine back articles relating to ASP.NET it is easy to miss, especially with such a generic name.
I found it in an afternoon, back when I was first learning ASP.NET.
You say "generic", I say "simple". Now you're proposing they should have given it a more complicated name?!
Hard-to-find documentation is just as bad as no documentation.
It's not hard to find. It took me less than 10 seconds to find via MSDN's search for pasting into the last comment. 10 seconds.
That article should be announced with trumpets in the API docs for relevant classes (Page, for example). As it is, the API docs contain very little of that information, and no link to that article.
The API documentation does what it does perfectly. (I assume you meant the documentation that specifically describes objects and their methods, properties and fields.)
Articles on basic programming principles and theory DO NOT belong in API documentation. This is what MSDN is for: a collection of documentation libraries, whitepapers, and discussions.
Again, you blame your ignorance on Microsoft, whereas every other ASP.NET coder is thoroughly familiar with MSDN and the (perhaps over-)abundance of documentation. Don't you find this odd? No one else has problems finding documentation.
I still maintain that the API is badly designed, with objects changing under you all the time and/or not responding to your commands. It doesn't have to be that way.
Such as? Give some examples. I've never run into these issues and I do some pretty advanced-level stuff. Don't just toss out blanket statements, it makes you look reactionary.
I assume you prefer the oh-so-robust PHP, with its absolutely moronic "allow anyone to store arbitrary variables in the url string" design flaw. Just one of many laughable design flaws.
PHP was never designed to be truly object-oriented, and now they're trying to tack OOP on, and they're not doing a very good job. Even 5.0 still isn't truly object-oriented. They're just glorified structs/associative arrays.
Of course, but benefit does subclassing an ASP.NET control give me than doing it my way to begin with?
? da te=2/16/2005
Well, the benefits of subclassing are day 1 lessons in OOP. But to rehash, subclassing allows you to add additional functionality to existing objects so that you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
And excellent example of subclassing a Calendar web control in ASP.NET is at:
http://www.maricopa.gov/EventsCalendarFull.aspx
And then I get the warm fuzzy feeling from tying my code to a propreitary platform? No thanks.
Oh, you're one of those bigots who doesn't let silly stuff like technological superiority get in the way.
Well, you'll be happy to know that the Mono project's ASP.NET implementation is fairly solid, and getting more solid by the week. So, even you open source bigots have something to use.
I said *large* file. Have you tried it? Actually I know you haven't because otherwise you wouldn't be posting that code. Please try uploading a 100 MB file to that page and then get back to me.
u ploading+l arge+files
k bpages/111 8.aspx
a sp?url= /library/en-us/dnaspp/html/aspnet-pageobjectmodel. asp
I'm getting back to you. Yes, I have tried it and it works fine.
You need to up the value in "maxRequestLength" in your web.config file under the httpRuntime section. You may have to add it manually, as its probably being inherited from your server.config file.
It's set to something like 4mb by default. Why? Because of buffers. ASP.NET doesn't want to waste memory if it doesn't have to, so it sets a low limit by default.
You should try Google, it works wonders:
http://www.google.com/search?q=asp.net+
Consequently, you can use the same search string at that oh-so-poorly-documented MSDN site, and read the first first result which pops up.
You can find more information here (the first result from the above Google search.)
http://www.dotnetspider.com/technology/
(And yes, I do need the capability to upload 100 MB files; don't try to rationalize ASP.NET's problems away by saying that's stupid or unimportant.)
The documentation *is* quite weak on specifying when you can and can't set certain properties of objects on a page. Telling me that MSDN exists (duh!) doesn't prove me wrong.
Oh so poorly documented on MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.
Furthermore, the fact that setting many properties can silently fail, or the fact that properties you just read can change unexpectedly due to this complexity is just bad API design, even if there was excellent documentation.
Ever heard of conditional checking? Private variables? Callbacks? Do you even know how to implement properties? (hint: it's not private string foo)
Consider yourself owned. Don't blame your ASP.NET ignorance on bs.
It is horrible when you're trying to do something moderately complex (uploading large files, for one exmaple of many) and you have to become inimately familiar with a huge chunk of a huge complex class structure in order to make it do what you want (if it's even possible).
.
Yeah, because Googling for "asp.net file uploading" and getting 100,000 results is hard.
Sub Upload_Click(Sender as Object, e as EventArgs)
' Display properties of the uploaded file
FileName.InnerHtml = MyFile.PostedFile.FileName
FileContent.InnerHtml = MyFile.PostedFile.ContentType
FileSize.InnerHtml = MyFile.PostedFile.ContentLength
UploadDetails.visible = True
'Grab the file name from its fully qualified path at client
Dim strFileName as string = MyFile.PostedFile.FileName
' only the attched file name not its path
Dim c as string = System.IO.Path.GetFileName(strFileName)
'Save uploaded file to server at C:\ServerFolder\
Try
MyFile.PostedFile.SaveAs("C:\ServerFolder\" + c)
Span1.InnerHtml = "Your File Uploaded Sucessfully at server as: " & _
"C:\ServerFolder\" & c
Catch Exp as exception
Span1.InnerHtml = "An Error occured. Please check the attached file"
UploadDetails.visible = false
Span2.visible=false
End Try
End Sub
Wow, look at that "huge complex class structure". Heh.
Or you get caught in an issue that depends on the order in which things are initialized, so you set properties of objects on your page which later get overwritten and you can't figure out why. (The documentation is not very helpful here, and these problems are common because many things in ASP.NET depend on order of initialization).
Uhm, there's plenty of documentation on this at http://msdn.microsoft.com and http://asp.net
Don't blame Microsoft because you won't read any documentation or the first two chapters out of an ASP.NET book.
Right-click on your ASP.NET page in VS.NET. Set page layout to "flow layout". No more absolute positioning.
Ever heard of subclassing?
Ahh, uhmm, what makes you think we want to get closer to asp.net ?
... rambling cut out ... it almost safe, that is safe until some of those users will open a beautiful e-mail in her outlook.
I don't expect you to, because you sound like a bigot. You probably don't have the slightest clue about ASP.NET and think its just like ASP with a new extension tagged onto it.
You know, being the opposite is just as useless.
Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I'm apparently a "Microsoft fanatic" because I give them a fair shake.
Sorry, but my main machine is a G5 running OS X, so suck it.
Yup, and who made Novell up in knots not that long ago ? Whatever you say sir.
"made Novell up in knots"? AD killed Novell, because Microsoft gave customers what they wanted and undercut Novell doing so. Microsoft has always done its best when it has serious competition.
That, for one, could happen if your users had so much rights on those machines as my neighbor 90 year old ma
The guy was talking about platform strategies, not just home users, specifically.
If you're a home user, you turn on Automatic Updates, install Microsoft Antispyware, and install AV software and you get the same benefits. Wow. That's fucking hard.
I didn't redefine shit. The guy talked about platform strategies. Pay attention.
Turn on automatic updates, install Microsoft Antispyware, install AV software. There. You're done.
No it doesn't. It means turning on Automatic Updates, which does the same thing for smaller environments. Hell, if you're super lazy, you can even have them automatically install at a given time.
This is like first-week Windows tech knowledge.
1.) Thanks Martin for participating in this interview. Not all of us readers are mindless Linux drones.
2.) Reading the phone interview verbatim is really hard. I much prefer the email interviews, or an edited text from the phone interview, or at least the appropriate use of punctuation. The interview was very hard to parse, Roblimo.
3.) To all the folks who complain that Windows is hard to protect against malware: you're clueless.
Here's how you keep your network safe:
1. Install and properly configure a firewall.
1a. Maybe install a web proxy server that blocks access to spyware/malware sites.
2. Create an AD domain
3. Join your clients to the AD domain
4. Install Software Update Services
5. Configure all clients to update off of your SUS server via GPOs
6. Install anti-spyware software via GPOs
These steps are not hard, and provide for stellar enterprise management capabilities.
On a network of over 5,000 machines, we have had exactly ONE (1, uno, etc) problem, and that problem was on a rogue machine (a personal laptop) and employee plugged into our network.
4.) The Slammer/Blaster/FooFoo were released a great deal of time after Microsoft released a security patch for the problem. Most of the time, these things infected machines that were heavily unpatched.
5.) Yes, Microsoft's software is still too bloated, too complex, too insecure and too extensible, but they're seeing the big picture. They're getting better, getting smarter.
Look at Windows Server 2003, look at IIS 6.0 (which stomps on Apache imho, something I never thought I'd say)
Most of the naysayers hate Microsoft so much, they'll blather any lie about them. They hate MS so much they don't even know the products in-depth themselves, recycling garbage from the Win95/Office 2000 days. Please, just STFU.
While you all are bitching and spreading FUD, Microsoft is slowly and quietly getting better and better. They're watching OSS and learning.
Where's your enterprise directory? (don't even start on about Novell, nor OpenLDAP)
Where's your web development environment that even comes close to ASP.NET? (don't say PHP, it isn't. don't say Mono, they're far from MS's ASP.NET implementation, although Mono rocks bigtime)
You're behind the curve, and getting farther behind by yapping and attacking.
Last I heard, Google is an American company. If Orkut is a popular website for those who's government oppresses their natural rights to free speech, so be it.
The idea that any government has cotnrol over a person's thoughts is utterly ridiculous.
Excellent, excellent post.
Keep in mind that "hate and racism" is covered by the first amendment, no matter how tasteless. These people have a right to what they're doing and thinking.
I worry that this recent witch hunt trend against racist movements will supercede the country's recognition of the Constitution.
These people have a right to their thoughts and ideas as long as they aren't harming others, killing, assaulting, etc.
If you want to properly combat these people, you are going to have to listen to their concerns. I believe that they have legitimate concerns that are skewed by blanket ideology and a fascination with nazism and ephemera. Shunning them only makes them stronger.
Diversity counselors are well-versed in this, as they're always lecturing us about this shit, but seem unwilling when the tables are turned.
Shouldn't this be a "Your Rights Online" post?
You know no hell until you use the goatse site as a test url in development and forget to take it out when the code goes live, and a user and then your boss find out before you do.