|
|
Not directly.
If, when you browse to the directory on the website, you get a list of files you can parse the resulting page for the filenames.
There is also an HTTP extension called Web DAV but I only know the name; I don't know anything else about it 
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nnamdi Onyeyiri wrote:
it give a little mesage saying whops, not alowed here
LOL exactly. In IIS for one there is a Directory Browsing option which the admin can enable or disable. The whole point is to allow or disallow people from snooping around, checking out your files etc.
However there are ways and means of circumventing the security and getting a directory list. However I am not about to go spreading that kind of info, you can search for it.
Nnamdi Onyeyiri wrote:
thats no use is it
Well search Google for Web DAV, you will find a ton of links and examples.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nnamdi Onyeyiri wrote:
Email
LMAO Nnamdi. No sorry won't do. I did not just mean I won't post the links to that info here on CP but that I simply will not spread that kind of info without a legit. reason.
I run IIS boxes and I naturally don't want this kind of info spreading. Anyway, you can get it from Google or even from Microsoft if you present a reasonable reason 
"I will not be a part of the problem" or some such cliched nonsense. 
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
However there are ways and means of circumventing the security and getting a directory list. However I am not about to go spreading that kind of info, you can search for it.
Translation:
We have a bug we cant fix. 
MYrc : A .NET IRC client with C# Plugin Capabilities. See
http://sourceforge.net/projects/myrc for more info.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm writing an application for collaboration where images are streamed from a capture source and it also allows users chat with text chat. So I've designed a network protocol where I can designate the type of command and various other arguments, etc... When this works it works very well, and when it breaks it really breaks. This has gotten me wondering how other developers handle these problems. Can anyone reccomend a good book or a web article, or even personal exprience on how to handle these issues concerning network protocol design?
Thanks,
Steven
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Gurus,
I've made a Dialog based in C# .. then copy the .exe to windows 2000 where no .NET is installed. When i run it, i asked for the mscoree.dll. I copied the file. THen it asks for the registry key which points to .NET framework...
So how do i run an .NET C# app in other OS without installing .NET?
Thanks in advance
NT
|
|
|
|
|
Trevor Vuong wrote:
So how do i run an .NET C# app in other OS without installing .NET?
Simply put: You don't
The framework HAS to be installed on the client computer for it to execute .NET code.
You wouldn't expect a game using DirectX to run without DirectX installed so why is .NET any different?
James
|
|
|
|
|
To clear things up more, the win2000 just need the .Net framework runtime, not the whole SDK.
MYrc : A .NET IRC client with C# Plugin Capabilities. See
http://sourceforge.net/projects/myrc for more info.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to let your customers download the run-time : http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?URL=/downloads/sample.asp?url=/MSDN-FILES/027/001/829/msdncompositedoc.xml
- That's 21MB, and that's just part of the story.
- If your app uses Data Access, you also need to point a link to download MDAC 2.7
- The DotNet Framework Service Pack 2 has been released yesterday, as an additional download.
And of course, the latest DotNet framework is strictly incompatible with an earlier, such like the one which came with VisualStudio DotNet beta 2.
Now you know...
I personally resent a lot over Microsoft for such philosophy. Not only Microsoft is relying on us developers to praise and evangelize DotNet, but we are actually forced to explicitely ask customers to download thse big chunks just to be able to run an .exe
At least, in the past, when you had finished installed your operating system, you could run .exes. That's not true anymore. That's a reason why I question Microsoft about whether DotNet is really an advancement...
By the way, comparing to DirectX is not exactly relevant. DirectX run-time is much shorter in size, much less frequent in updates (barealy once every one and a half year), and on top of that it carries a lot of very valuable values for the end user. DotNet framework is the exact opposite of that : no value for the end user itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
I personally resent a lot over Microsoft for such philosophy. Not only Microsoft is relying on us developers to praise and evangelize DotNet, but we are actually forced to explicitely ask customers to download thse big chunks just to be able to run an .exe
Think of it like dynamically linked MFC. Your MFC app wont run without it installed. Or Java which which will not run without the Jave VM.
You just need to include it in your setup program just like any other API that is not shipped with all the OSs (DirectX, DAO etc.)
If you really feel strongly then don't write any .NET apps until the runtime ships with the OS and then wait until nobody uses Win98/2000/XP - should be about 7 years.
Joel
|
|
|
|
|
I understand you but I believe your argument falls short.
First of all, the Java VM is native in the OS, whether we are talking about Windows, Sun, ... And the JVM is significantly updated only once every two years. In other words, that doesn't do any harm to the consumer.
About the MFC, not much things to say. That's 2 to 3MB. You provide it in tour own install shield and everything is fine till the end of time.
Regarding DotNet, that changes a lot. Microsoft is currently updating this sh*t every other month. Service Pack2 was released yesterday.
You have a highly questionable point of view regarding third parties. For you, software can be assembled and used with as many third parties as you like.
Let me tell you what I think about it. I have worked until June in one of the most successful software company on the planet. Do you want to know why we have succeeded so far ? because we have never used third parties where it was possible not to use them. The software was clean and worked by itself on top of any of the major OS. Beyonds that, we have successfully managed to control the level of bugs and customer satisfaction, because we don't rely on others.
In this rough corporate spending times, I don't believe that distributing software with a high amount of third parties is an option. But I admit this may be successful for you.
Now about sharewares. Are you a shareware developer ? As long as you stick with MFC, ATL, and stuff like that, sharing your software to the mass market does no harm to you nor to consumers.
With DotNet this is no longer true. In fact, sometimes in the future (if you are a shareware developer) you will realize that you have been f***ed by Microsoft who is relying on YOU to ease DotNet adoption, while at the same time end users will question why the hell they should download over 20MBs of non visible software (that may lock their computers) just to launch your app.
DotNet will be available with OS somewhere in 2004. But that's a fake. The day is OS is released, you will have to upgrade your system to be up to date, just like when XP shipped.
|
|
|
|
|
Just for you Microsoft lover :
(excerpt from today's CNET news)
"Users receive five prompts to signup for a Passport account after installing the operating system. Microsoft had already announced plans to remove the prompts as part of Windows XP Service Pack 1. The update, expected as early as late August, includes other tweaks in response to Microsoft's antitrust settlement with the Justice Department and nine of 18 states. A federal judge has yet to approve the deal."
I wonder when DotNet run-times requires a user passport before being downloaded.
Microsoft is enabling themselves, not empowering users nor developers.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Just for you Microsoft lover
Strong words for someone who won't own even up to who they are.
As far as I'm concerned this troll session is over.
James
|
|
|
|
|
You silents that CP evangelizes DotNet.
Non-dev sites already show and explain Microsoft plans quite well. I understand developers that have been "acquired" by Microsoft cannot stand any kind of constructive criticism.
To provide end users with better products, developers need to know exactly what they do. With so many upgrades (almost every day now), I simply believe it is not possible anymore for a developer to know and master what they do at the same level than before.
There is at least a simple reason for that : DotNet adds layers of code instead of replacing them.
Quite funnily, in my earlier software company, when we didn't know how to solve problems, we were used to build wrappers around the classes, adding (useless) layers to the code.
Knowledge is these days more on the Microsoft side ; the MSDN documentation is now almost impossible to read ; the public MS dotnet newsgroups are really funny to read : many people that were mastering quite well VC++, are now much like VB developers bound to use third-party components and pray it does the job.
Thanks "software as a service" : that will certainly improve end-user experience...
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
MS dotnet newsgroups are really funny to read
Then stop reading them.
It's not Bill's fault that all the 404s in the world seem to frequent those NGs.
Anonymous wrote:
MSDN documentation is now almost impossible to read
That's about the only good point.
As far as complaining about the skills of developers, sure, you've got an issue there, but it's with those developers and not MS.
If ppl aren't learning enough about a technology and end up implementing some sh!te at the client's expense, then it's on their head and not MS.
Trolling MS on a MS site, clever, very clever. 
Cheers,
Simon
"Sign up for a chance to be among the first to experience the wrath of the gods.", Microsoft's home page (24/06/2002)
|
|
|
|
|
Then stop reading them. (MS newsgroup)
No! when I mean it is funny, I really mean I laugh at the posts. That's worth Dilbert.
If ppl aren't learning enough about a technology and end up implementing some sh!te at the client's expense, then it's on their head and not MS.
That's why a bunch of open source libraries are always better whatever the devlopment you are involved in.
I just hate it when knowledge and handle is kept hidden behind so-called new frameworks. Makes me tickle when I read Microsoft swears "this new product is new and better, enhances productivity, and empowers developers".
However, what matters me most these days is the deployment issues. It really seems that no one at CP gives a sh*t about it, although it is part of the development cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
And of course, the latest DotNet framework is strictly incompatible with an earlier, such like the one which came with VisualStudio DotNet beta 2.
Only the beta's were this way. Starting with RC0, it and future versions could co-exist on the same system.
Anonymous wrote:
no value for the end user itself
That's debatable, if there were no value to the end user no one would use it. Unless it is really minor, if there is added benefit to the developer there is added benefit to the end user as well. In the case of .NET that is increased productivity which lowers end user cost and development time.
James
|
|
|
|
|
James T. Johnson wrote :
In the case of .NET that is increased productivity which lowers end user cost and development time.
Hum...
VisualStudio DotNet is several times slower than Visual Studio 6.0 in both working environment and speed of generated .exe code.
In fact, what the latest software from Microsoft requires is...new hardware. Don't lie, you know that's true.
End users spend their time upgrading, and upgrading and upgrading again. That's not exactly improved productivity.
I personally love upgrading Microsoft software, for instance when I am told to urgently upgrade Windows Media, just to know later that I cannot do freely MP3 any longer because of it.
Do you remember Microsoft Word provided on server-side through on ApplicationServiceProvider business model by Microsoft. This was last year. Have we heard about this anymore ?
I same the same productivity con about DotNet than the one I have against server-side applications such like Microsoft Word on an ASP model.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever even worked on a real .NET app and seen the productivity increase?..Change is inevitable in this industry mate, so wake up and face reality.
May the Source be with you
Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I have. The strongest was this Visual SQL app that let's you build SQL sentences with friendly drag&drop.
This was done easily using C++.
This failed miserably using dotnet :
- deployment issues : no one is willing to download over 21MB of bloat just to launch my .exe
- blocking bugs in ADO.Net : looks like only half of the drivers code is implemented (SQL.Net provider + OLEDB.Net provider).
- very questionable deployment issues regarding new data .Net providers such like ODBC's and ORACLE's.
- many blocking code reuse issues : some useful classes from the framework are not reusable (constructor marked as internal).
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding productivity improvement, please do me a favor : read in this C# forum the latest threads titled "how to click a button", and "i install net framework sdk".
If you don't laugh at when you see the amount of new terminologies and concept and code and arguing point of views meant to implement...a button click, then ok you are right : I am really meaninglessly trashing everyone here...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Email: 
