No, it works for all applications, just don't select the wrong program or you will have to re-install it.gonzo80 said:vesuvius said:*snip*
I have the same problem with a .Net application, from the event log:
Faulting application csc.exe, version 8.0.50727.42, stamp 4333e5fb, faulting module mscorpe.dll, version 2.0.50727.786, stamp 459dc89d, debug? 0, fault address 0x00004467.
and the exception i get is the same of jh71283:
Unable to generate a temporary class (result=1). error CS0583: Internal Compiler Error...
The application was perfectly running yesterday, today i have this problem.
I have the automatic updates enabled, and i saw through 'Add/Remove Applications' that today SQL Server Management Studio Express has been updated.
How can this be correlated?
I tried to uninstall SQL Server Management Studio Express, but the error persists.
I also saw that the 'Windows Installer CleanUp' that vesuvius suggested is only for Office applications.
I need help... How can i solve the problem?
The same problem happened with Silverlight. As son as that came out Microsoft were ridiculed for having flash pretty much everywhere in their web properties.Maddus Mattus said:Bass said:*snip*
The question you have to ask yourself when buying some off the shelf product is;
Does this meet my needs now and in the future?
What are the costs of a change in this application?
Custom development has the benefit of meeting all of your needs. Sure it's more expensive to develop, but that's not where the actual costs go. 90% of all costs in an application is keeping it running. So if you have custom developed software, you are the owner, you can change it if you feel like it.
If you buy a product or use a FOSS project you get something that maybe does not cover all your needs. You then need to hire expensive people to tailor it for you. You do not become the owner of the software. If the product dies (this happens in FOSS a lot) you will have to move to another.
So saying that people should look more at off the shelf solutions is a bit bold. There are more factors that you need to take into account.
It's all about the big management decisions. Developers and project managers have very little to do with it. If a company or a goverment has a mission statement that they do not want to develop or support software, go for option 2. Then accept that you are less in control. If you go for option one, be prepared to hire people to support the project.
I could well imagine the reason for Channel 9 to be custom developed is for a company as big as Microsoft could be a PR decision; "Geez, look at Microsoft their flagship is phpBB! Can't they write some software on their own stupid platform?".
I love the phpbb forums, and in truth they have more functionality out of the box than channel 9 which is still on it's way to to attain feature parity . phpbb has been in development for nearly a decade now whilst the new evnet codebase is less or around a year old. In some ways this illustrates the rapid rate of change that proprietary solutions can attain. In more or less than a year they have reached feature parity, whereas it has taken phpbb nearly a decade.
For most businesses phpbb if an ideal solution. It has a very good install experience, lots of documentation, is highly customizable but change does not occur with the same rate as having something like Channel 9.
It is a well documented fact that the biggest cost in any IT project is maintenance and not the million you pay to get a website up and running. In the business world priorities are like a moving target. This week the business needs their main application to work this way. In a month they need another update and a plethora of reports for their new sales strategy.
If you use obscure, not standards compliant FOSS,, and you need to make changes to a critical business module, your business will fail, because you are now tied to something that limits your business.
You really are arguing about this from a theoretical standpoint, and making an omelette without breaking eggs.
I will demonstrate this to you. I want you or anybody else to think of a small business oriented application that you can develop using mono or whatever FOSS you like. Please try and keep it basic (could be a single data entry form) and I will develop the same using .NET.
You can then prove to me the error of my ways. Are you up for it?
Guys please do chip in with some application suggestions.
I agree entirely with you here. There is no doubt that you have enormously skilled developers, that like to use somewhat deficient or less productive IDE's. Clearly anyone that uses most of these tools has never tried to ship a product within a 6 month time-scale and a strict budget.Ray7 said:Bass said:*snip*
... odd that they're gaining more traction every day then. The number of jobs looking for .NET skills has rocketed in the UK over the past two years; they'll reach parity with Java by the end of this year I reckon (and I'm speaking as a Java developer). When you get down to it, what matters to the banks and the government offices is results; they don't really have time for idealism. In my experience, the FOSS tools still lack any real integration and still don't come close to the MS toolset when it comes to getting something up and running fast. This is a shame because I suspect that ASP.NET MVC will start to take over too, even though MS has only discovered design patterns in the last few years or so. There are lots of Java based solutions that are better than the new kid, (take a look at Tapestry or Wicket to see what ASP.NET MVC will look like ten years from now) but without solid integration and tooling, they're going to start to feel the pinch.
The problem is that when folk talk about increasing use of open source, they're actually talking about the likes of Facebook and Twitter; a startup that (quite rightly) didn't see the benefit of forking out the upfront of costs of MS licenses.
In this country at least, the government and the banks don't seem to see it the same way.
If you have a team of let say four developers that you are paying £400 a day each on a contract, you will need cohesion between their tools, and you will want them to be as productive as possible.When you also look at the most successful .NET 3.0 technology i.e. WCF with it's RESTFUL ADO.NET data services, you need tools that get the job done.
Yes you will certainly win the esoteric, cerebral argument, about the superior programming capabilities of these tools, but visual studio allows you cohesion, without a loss in quality and I will ship my product in 5 months on a budget of £250 000, whereas you will double if not triple that budget, and probably lose the same amount of money in lost revenue sales.
I think Bass needs to separate thinking with his head and his heart.
Business is all about thinking with the head mostly, much as you'd love to see things done or written in a certain way. As the recent (and sad) layoffs at Microsoft will prove, Research and associated tools are not the bread and butter of the operation. Yes they open new doors, but when it comes down to business sense, you go with that which generates revenue.
Using Visual studio is like walking through treacle?
First point of call is whether .NET 3.5 SP1 has been installed on this machine, if not please ensure that this has been done. Has Visual Studio 2008 SP1 been installed either, because that is also a necessity?
Be warned though that this installation will take ages. Apart from that, I have had issues with VS 2008 intermittently taking forever to do anything, even with small windows forms projects, I have always gone for a reboot which seems to work.
Why when users can just download the application if they need the additional features?mawcc said:Using Paint.NET, extending it with a Ribbon and adding support for MEF might have been a better choice.
Take the live suite for instance, if users don't require Email or messenger, they can choose to install what they want.
I'm not so sure.blowdart said:vesuvius said:*snip*
See how bad the analogy is?
There are a number of concerns anybody must have when using Open Source software, especially opting to use it as the main program for any operation. People can sell these apricot pips to the Government, and say open source software can solve abstruse distributed problems, but the Government (or opposition) are not really in a position to best judge.
I think apricot pips have been sold already as a ROI on the ISOFT project, hence the free option looks appealing.
Today's opposition is tomorrows Government, and I will bet my bottom dollar that this would never be opposed by Labour. The Conservatives are there to hold Labour to account, and in these times where the government is losing money hand over fist with Fiscal Stimuli, this isn't even an academic decision.blowdart said:So some reality.
This is not the government, it's an opposition statement. So it is not the UK government opting for open source.
What's interesting is the mention of open standards, something far more useful. Lets face it sometimes closed source does a better job; so a concentration on open standards leaves scope for choosing the best solution for the problem.
The problem with the NHS central spine wouldn't have been solved by open source, its more a lack of specifications, changing demands and large contractors whose penalty clauses are never called in when they fail. In fact Connecting for Health does use open source, Suse to be precise. Novell has a £21.8 million contract for enterprise linux.
Take GlaxoSmithKline for instance. Like windows they have patented recipes for medication that saves people lives. Some people try alternative medicine that has proven to work in some cases.
Is the true story, rather, that proprietary companies have always charged through the teeth for honey, lemon and tea. The change here is that for ailments like the common cold, users can treat themselves, in some regard, using homoeopathic, even holistic remedies. One could liken this to a basic OS like Linux and Open Office. For more specialized medicine, like treating an aggressive form of cancer you analogously have Microsoft solving the hard distributed application paradigm?
Is this type of reasoning misconstruction?
This is quite remarkable.
Mr Osborne said: "The Conservative Party is looking to the future. We have led the debate on using open source software in government, and I'm delighted that Dr Mark Thompson has come forward with these detailed recommendations.
Just like the smoking ban in New York, and the French Government opting for Linux, Britain appears to be following the same trend. It seems all Government want now is a free OS, with a Web browser application that their staff can use to input some base Government programmes.
One gross misconstruction by Politicians though, is in not grasping what things like Azure bring to the table, and that a highly distributed application like the one being written for the NHS would take a century to attain via open source.
Yes open source will eat into Microsoft OS share significantly especially, if Governments start opting out of OS and hardware upgrades, is this the thin end of the wedge?