another Vista SP1 success .. - Linux

This is a discussion on another Vista SP1 success .. - Linux ; http://www.uploadimage.org/images/x9...h95pof8165.jpg...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: another Vista SP1 success ..

  1. another Vista SP1 success ..


  2. Re: another moronic post from Duhg Mentohl ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:09c8604b-2bfe-46de-923f-bb4fd5ae57dd@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
    > http://www.uploadimage.org/images/x9...h95pof8165.jpg


    Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista. It's an error in somebodies
    webpage where they are trying to access a property that doesn't exist.
    Probably a typo.

    You really are a moron.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    On 17 Apr, 17:50, "flattie Ezekiel" wrote:

    > Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista ..


    It was working before the 'upgrade', nothing was changed, then this
    happened ...

  4. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > http://www.uploadimage.org/images/x9...h95pof8165.jpg


    "Server Error in '/' Application"

    Sounds like a rootkit to me

    --
    It's a business I don't know anything about, but I admire Bill Gates
    enormously. I know him individually, and I think he's incredible in business.
    -- Warren Buffett, in lecture at Kenan-Flagler Business School, University
    of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (1994)

  5. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Doug Mentohl

    wrote
    on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
    <5e6b3ead-cd98-47b2-acfc-3f5c813f3706@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
    > On 17 Apr, 17:50, "flattie Ezekiel" wrote:
    >
    >> Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista ..

    >
    > It was working before the 'upgrade', nothing was changed, then this
    > happened ...


    Um...is it me, or am I totally confused as to why someone
    put Vista on a PRODUCTION server without adequate testing
    first?

    Or is this some sort of development/QA machine?

    It is interesting to contemplate why the .NET runtime moved
    CssClass from System.Web.UI.WebControls.Placeholder though.
    I'm not that familiar with C#/.NET but hasn't Microsoft
    heard of the concept of deprecation? Ye gods.

    I don't think Java did it quite right but at least Java can
    mark a routine as deprecated, which results in a warning
    message during a Java compile. (One hopes the developers
    are paying attention thereto.)

    It's also rather nice that the customer -- whoever is
    viewing the Webpage -- is treated to a view into the guts
    of the thing. Some of that might be rather sensitive.
    Of course the flip side is equally problematic, basically
    resulting in customer calls of "uh...it's broken".

    Hopefully Customer Service can look at the log files in
    the latter case to figure out exactly what the customer
    was doing, and what broke.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    try our new color changing variant?

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > On 17 Apr, 17:50, "flattie Ezekiel" wrote:
    >
    >> Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista ..

    >
    > It was working before the 'upgrade', nothing was changed, then this
    > happened ...


    If what you say is true, then it's nothing more than a tightening of the
    parser in SP1. System.web.ui.webcontrols.placeholder has never had a
    documented CssClass property. Placeholders don't have a UI element, they
    are either replaced by and actual bit of code, or they result in no html
    generated at all, as such a CssClass property would be useless on it.

    If you are right and that it worked pre-sp1, then it was a flaw in the the
    pre-sp1 code that was fixed by the SP1. Either way, your code is wrong and
    where the error lies, even if it worked previously.

    You'll notice here there is no CssClass property:

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...r_members.aspx

    Of course, as is typical with virtually *ANYTHING* technical you try to
    talk about, all you prove is how little you know. This is like someone
    blaming the validator because his invalid code doesn't validate.

  7. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:27:32 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > It is interesting to contemplate why the .NET runtime moved
    > CssClass from System.Web.UI.WebControls.Placeholder though.
    > I'm not that familiar with C#/.NET but hasn't Microsoft
    > heard of the concept of deprecation? Ye gods.


    It didn't remove it, it was never there to begin with. The difference is
    that the parser in dotnet 2.0 sp1 is more strict and doesn't ignore invalid
    attributes anymore.

  8. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    On 2008-04-17, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Doug Mentohl
    >
    > wrote
    > on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
    ><5e6b3ead-cd98-47b2-acfc-3f5c813f3706@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
    >> On 17 Apr, 17:50, "flattie Ezekiel" wrote:
    >>
    >>> Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista ..

    >>
    >> It was working before the 'upgrade', nothing was changed, then this
    >> happened ...

    >
    > Um...is it me, or am I totally confused as to why someone
    > put Vista on a PRODUCTION server without adequate testing
    > first?
    >
    > Or is this some sort of development/QA machine?
    >
    > It is interesting to contemplate why the .NET runtime moved
    > CssClass from System.Web.UI.WebControls.Placeholder though.
    > I'm not that familiar with C#/.NET but hasn't Microsoft
    > heard of the concept of deprecation? Ye gods.
    >


    As Eric pointed out - it never existed in the first place. The fact
    that it worked at all was a bug.

    > I don't think Java did it quite right but at least Java can
    > mark a routine as deprecated, which results in a warning
    > message during a Java compile. (One hopes the developers
    > are paying attention thereto.)
    >


    You get the same in .NET. You just mark a member obsolete by applying
    the System.ObsoleteAttribute. The compiler then will spit out a warning
    when that member is used. You can actually make it generate a compile
    error if you want


    > It's also rather nice that the customer -- whoever is
    > viewing the Webpage -- is treated to a view into the guts
    > of the thing. Some of that might be rather sensitive.
    > Of course the flip side is equally problematic, basically
    > resulting in customer calls of "uh...it's broken".
    >


    You can (and probably should) set up custom error pages. This view is
    only normally shown to the developers.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  9. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:403ld5-3c.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Doug Mentohl
    >
    > wrote
    > on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
    > <5e6b3ead-cd98-47b2-acfc-3f5c813f3706@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
    >> On 17 Apr, 17:50, "flattie Ezekiel" wrote:
    >>
    >>> Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista ..

    >>
    >> It was working before the 'upgrade', nothing was changed, then this
    >> happened ...

    >
    > Um...is it me, or am I totally confused as to why someone
    > put Vista on a PRODUCTION server without adequate testing
    > first?
    >
    > Or is this some sort of development/QA machine?
    >
    > It is interesting to contemplate why the .NET runtime moved
    > CssClass from System.Web.UI.WebControls.Placeholder though.
    > I'm not that familiar with C#/.NET but hasn't Microsoft
    > heard of the concept of deprecation? Ye gods.
    >
    > I don't think Java did it quite right but at least Java can
    > mark a routine as deprecated, which results in a warning
    > message during a Java compile. (One hopes the developers
    > are paying attention thereto.)
    >
    > It's also rather nice that the customer -- whoever is
    > viewing the Webpage -- is treated to a view into the guts
    > of the thing. Some of that might be rather sensitive.


    That's why there's a setting for this. In 'end-user' mode it displays a
    regular error screen (that's customizable if you should want).

    Then there's the 'developer' mode that gives specific information about the
    errors which is the mode that was set when this screenshot was taken.



    > Of course the flip side is equally problematic, basically
    > resulting in customer calls of "uh...it's broken".
    >
    > Hopefully Customer Service can look at the log files in
    > the latter case to figure out exactly what the customer
    > was doing, and what broke.
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
    > try our new color changing variant?
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    >



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:10:48 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> On 17 Apr, 17:50, "flattie Ezekiel" wrote:
    >>
    >>> Idiot. This has nothing to do with Vista ..

    >>
    >> It was working before the 'upgrade', nothing was changed, then this
    >> happened ...

    >
    > If what you say is true, then it's nothing more than a tightening of the
    > parser in SP1. System.web.ui.webcontrols.placeholder has never had a
    > documented CssClass property. Placeholders don't have a UI element, they
    > are either replaced by and actual bit of code, or they result in no html
    > generated at all, as such a CssClass property would be useless on it.
    >
    > If you are right and that it worked pre-sp1, then it was a flaw in the the
    > pre-sp1 code that was fixed by the SP1. Either way, your code is wrong and
    > where the error lies, even if it worked previously.
    >
    > You'll notice here there is no CssClass property:
    >
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...r_members.aspx
    >
    > Of course, as is typical with virtually *ANYTHING* technical you try to
    > talk about, all you prove is how little you know. This is like someone
    > blaming the validator because his invalid code doesn't validate.


    By the way, you should read this:

    "The First Rule of Programming: It's Always Your Fault"

    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001079.html

  11. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > By the way, you should read this:
    >
    > "The First Rule of Programming: It's Always Your Fault"
    >
    > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001079.html


    Ah, that site /does/ have valid, useful information after all.

    I've been writing a unit-test application to test my simple unit-test
    framework (written in C). Over 400 subtests so far, and it has really
    helped me find a lot of things to tighten and fix. And the project was
    based on a refactoring of code that I've had around for quite a few
    years!

    There's no substitute for using your own code heavily.

    --
    I wish I wasn't ... There's nothing good that comes out of that. You get more
    visibility as a result of it.
    -- Bill Gates, On being the world's richest man, in an online advertising
    conference in Redmond, Washington, as quoted in The Guardian (5 May 2006)

  12. Re: another Vista SP1 success ..

    On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:08:53 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> By the way, you should read this:
    >>
    >> "The First Rule of Programming: It's Always Your Fault"
    >>
    >> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001079.html

    >
    > Ah, that site /does/ have valid, useful information after all.
    >
    > I've been writing a unit-test application to test my simple unit-test
    > framework (written in C). Over 400 subtests so far, and it has really
    > helped me find a lot of things to tighten and fix. And the project was
    > based on a refactoring of code that I've had around for quite a few
    > years!
    >
    > There's no substitute for using your own code heavily.


    I used to hang out a lot in several compiler newsgroups (borland and
    microsoft), and it was quite common (especially after a new release) to see
    people come in and claim emphatically that there was a bug in the compiler
    because their program, which ran fine on the previous version now crashes
    in the new one.

    Invariably, it was always proven to be a bug in the users program that just
    so happened to have worked in the previous version (stuff like buffer
    overruns that broke because the compiler laid out memory differently, or
    assuming some uninitialzed variable had a certain value).

    What you learn is that just because something used to work, doesn't mean it
    was valid code, and if it breaks it's almost never a bug in the tools. Not
    that occasionally there wasn't a real bug in them, but chances are any
    compiler or framework has had orders of magnitude more testing than your
    code has had.

+ Reply to Thread