The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I'm in a mixed group, some silver boxes some black boxes, Lync/Skype works well with my black box brethren. With the Silver boxes we tend to use Zoom, the only drawback is that meetings can only last 40 minutes.
I have started using Zoho Meeting, http://join.zoho.com/ its quick and easy and free for low usage. I use teamviewer for non-commercial purposes but their licences are too expensive for occasional usage.
I haven't seen anyone else mention it yet, but I use the paid version of Mikogo for business meetings with clients (when I'm working as a contractor). It works really nicely and I haven't hit the limit on participants yet.
It includes VOIP that works really well, but the meeting is all-VOIP or all-phone (dialin), so the lowest common denominator wins if you have a mixed bag of attendees.
vuolsi così colà dove si puote
ciò che si vuole, e più non dimandare
--The answer to Minos and any question of "Why are we doing it this way?"
I regularly use both GoToMeeting and Join.me for international online meetings.
I don't have a preference; both work very well to coordinate our activities over. The presenter's screen is displayed for all to see. Voice can be via your microphone or dial in for those who don't have a microphone on their PC.
Previously I used TightVNC, though a pain to setup if the other party isn't exactly "literate".
These days, NoMachine. It has a interactive and view-only mode as well. The fastest throughput I've yet seen in any of these remote screen sharing systems. Very easy to use, even across all major OSs. The free version only allows one connection at a time, but the enterprise version gives the possibility of several viewers / interacters on the same screen.
Hi CodeProject members,
After being a passive reader of CodeProject articles for so long a time, it feels great to be actively contributing something to this thriving and extremely helpful community.
Recently, I decided to undertake the task of explaining some relatively complex concepts of T-SQL, SQL Server and MSBI, in an effort to give back something to the community I have been learning from for so long.
My goal is to simplify the explanation and elucidation of the concepts as much as possible, at the expense of being annoyingly verbose if need be.
To this effect, I started with explanation of a recursive Common Table Expression in t-SQL. My article can be found at[^] http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1139746/Recursive-CTE.
Now this is my first attempt at explaining something in writing. I need feedback-, how have I fared overall, suggestions for improvement, possible topics for later etc.
Thus, I am sincerely hoping, active community members would help me out in this regard. I have tried explaining the recursive CTE concept to the best of my ability here. But of course, often one's best is still lacking in some respects. Please come forth with your comments and feedback.
Could I have used a better example to explain the concept?
Could I have used better formatting for the code snippets? Or the result-sets?
How could I have ensured that this article is as helpful as possible to a person who is finding it difficult to grasp the recursive CTE concept?
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Ah yes. True. Thing is I wanted to post this message only once. But immediately on posting it, the website reported 'Message removed'! And I was confused if I was doing something wrong-like posting my message in the wrong forum perhaps. Therefore, the repetition.
And I couldn't get the link right. True again. I am doing this for the first time.
By the way, is there any specific rule or regulation which bans people from posting anything after 7 years?
And regarding drumming up support for an article, the article is what it is. The article's usefulness or worthlessness should not be judged simply on the basis of a perceived desperation on the part of its author. Give the article a chance to prove itself.