Visual Studio 2003.NET -- so called ease of use

  • Thread starter Thread starter Travis 'Bailo' Bickel
  • Start date Start date
T

Travis 'Bailo' Bickel

Ok, this one makes me laugh.

It's so funny, I almost want to love Microsoft for creating bullshit
like this.

Here's the problem. When I try to copy a project in Visual Studio 2003.
NET to another server ( something that should be /transparent/ ) the
following error message appears ( this is when copying to a server that
has been fully upgraded to the latest service packs and frameworks ):

"The Specified Web Server Not Running ASP.NET Version 1.1"


Here is the fix:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;825792

But the real kicker is this in the article:

STATUS
This behavior is by design.


If this is design, then................
 
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Billy O'Connor mumbled this incantation:
*rubs eyes*
I'm looking at it, but I still don't believe it. If it's by design,
why can't they just have the, oh, nm.
Click to expand...

That's as clear as a wjbell...
 
Dude... be fair.

ASP.NET is set up, by default, not to behave like a development server.
(After all the criticism that Microsoft took for setting up bad defaults,
you'd think you'd be GLAD of this).

All you have to do is tell the web server that it is supposed to be used as
a development server, and everything works.

Of course it is by design.

(Next time, READ the rest of the KB article).

--- Nick
 
Nick said:
Dude... be fair.
Click to expand...

I am fair. If a company unleashes a torrent of media hype and it's leader
says that the advantage of CSS over OSS is *ease of use*, and then I
present actually examples where useability is totally arcane, then I think
I have a right to make that information public.
ASP.NET is set up, by default, not to behave like a development server.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree. The default should be a web server designed for reading
information, not writing.
All you have to do is tell the web server that it is supposed to be used
as a development server, and everything works.

(Next time, READ the rest of the KB article).
Click to expand...

Um. No. I read the article and followed the *fix*, but it did not work.

Basically the tale of this install of a project from VS to a target server
entailed:

0) Three hours of upgrading w2k -- patches, reboots, service packs, more
reboots, etc.

What then happened was:

1) Could not get *Copy Project* to work, as above.
2) Somehow VS and VSS killed my web.config file and set it back to the
default.
3) Even though I have checked in and saved this project many times, there
was no /history/ in VSS.
4) After hand copying the changes to webconfig from another copy I luckily
stored on a QA server, the target machine still threw errors.
5) Found the mentioned article on the KB support site.
6) Applied fix did not work.
7) Decided just to copy project manually using file copy in windos.

Ok, so now it's taken me 3 hours -- including me staying late for 90 minutes
at work, and I'm salary not contract so I /hate/ that... and I still have
to do more config work tomorrow.
 
please dont feed the linux troll!

these people get their jollies off by making unfounded, uneducated, dumb
asertations about products or services they know f...k all about - and
why???

because the development model doesnt fit ther small minded view of life.

shit happens, get over it - dont feed the trolls.
 
Steven said:
please dont feed the linux troll!

these people get their jollies off by making unfounded, uneducated, dumb
asertations about products or services they know f...k all about - and
why???
Click to expand...

Um, my /assertion/ was based on an experience documented by not one, but
two, microsoft KB articles at support.microsoft.com

Not only that, but the suggested fix for the symptoms, did not fix the
problem and I ended up copying the files by hand and manually setting up
the website and the application.

The Copy Project feature is one that I looked forward to using as I develop
a lot of web applications and like the idea of pushing projects to Internal
QA via the testing.

Again, if Microsoft wants people to *pay* for CSS -- it should be /better/
-- not worse -- than OSS.

As for me, once I leave work, I fire up KDevelop and do real work :D
 
Back
Top