|
Nothing to do with MVC...With HTML checkbox value is absolutely meaningless, you should check the 'checked' attribute...
If you want to use MVC, use the helpers - they resolves the anomalies of HTML...
If you want to use HTML directly...read about it...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I am using the helpers, and this has NOTHING to do with whether I'm using them or not. I'm using the standard method for retrieving the checked status from within a view. REGARDLESS of all of that, "true,false" as a return value is severely f*cked up.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite weird, yes, but not an MVC or .NET specific behavior. It'd be the same if you used Ruby or JavaScript. If you use MVC's built-in model binding, they abstract this away from the coder, if not, if you really want to access it via the Form object - a recommended approach is to use GetValues(name)[0].
|
|
|
|
|
Did I say it was the fault of .Net or MVC?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
It's called a "Microsoft Boolean"
It has as many values as they like, and there's nothing you can do to stop them changing it to become even more useless
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Which one of you liberal pussies marked my original message as spam?
Was it because I said "F*CK" instead of that gay-ass replacement phrase "elephant"?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all,
So in our company we have a very old software that works on a Windows XP virtual machine.
Yesterday the computer where it run (windows 7) upgraded silently the Microsoft Security Essentials (in the W7) and now the software that should run in the XP virtual machine can't start.
If I disable completely the Microsoft Security Essentials AV the old software runs properly.
The person in front of that computer is not a computer expert and therefore I don't want to leave that computer without any antivirus solution.
Have you faced something like that? which kind of exceptions on which free (please) antivirus should I use?
I've tried to install the Bitdefender free and I can't set exceptions and it is not working so it is not a good option, AVG allow me to set exceptions which I did by adding the VMware player exe, the VMware software folder and the VM folder into exceptions with the same result.
As always thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using Avira (free). It seems like you can set exceptions, although I haven't needed to do so. Click[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Did you tried to exclude the executable (if located on the host) or the VM disk image in MSE?
I'm always excluding VM files (like VHD, VMCX, VSV) from Virus scans for performance reasons. If necessary, the OS in the VM must have it's own protection.
|
|
|
|
|
I see Security Essentails does have the ability to add exclusions? Click[^]
I still think Avira is a better AV
|
|
|
|
|
Set an exception, as others have mentioned already. This "should" work for you, as it has solved similar issues for us in the past.
BTW, any AV software worth its salt, will allow you to set folder and file level exceptions (whitelist).
|
|
|
|
|
The free versions of some (like Bitdefender) don't allow you to, for 'ease of use'. But actually it's so that you need to purchase the full version.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know why you would use the "free version" of anything, if it is for your business or company, if it doesn't give you what you need.
|
|
|
|
|
Because some companies are stingy
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that whenever it silently updates on my tablet, it disables the wifi -- it leaves it looking like it's working, but it's not, and nothing you can do will get it working again.
I now describe myself as "a former ardent Microsoft supporter, for thirty years"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Around 2.5 million people in Great Britain - 9% of drinkers - consume more than the new weekly recommended limit for alcohol in a single day, latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
To be honest, once they discount all the people trying to work with Javascript the total falls to 3.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
There's obviously not a lot else to do in Aberystwyth then?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I went to Aberystwyth once, it was closed.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
Officially I am a binge drinker.
On most Wednesdays I go to the pub and have 3 pints of beer.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Wow! 6 whole beers exceeds the "weekly limit".
My advice: Emigrate! You're living in a fascist country! (Says one who lives in a country where the remains of prohibition still linger.)
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Cornelius Henning wrote: You're living in a fascist country!
Not yet! It's a moaning hippie country whilst they're still guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
I decided for a yearly limit. And I'm always very funny *) in January.
*) I know a lot of People who disagrees with this
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well - let's be honest, you do skew the statistics a fair amount all on your own!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Alcohol: 2.5 million people bust weekly limit in a day
Alcohol: Nagy busts weekly limit EVERY day
|
|
|
|