Have you seen teamup.com? Works great for my use case, and it's free, but that depends on the number of users/features. Login on the free tier is by personal link (no password), so that's certainly easy, if perhaps not very safe.
This is not a signature.
Thanks guys!!! I can't help but wonder how long it would have taken to fix this problem if I hadn't found this information ... the internet in general and Codeproject in particular is pretty neat some times ... :)
This is not a signature.
Excellent post! You got my five!
This is not a signature.
I guess 90% of our home is made in IKEA-land. We bought most of our kitchen cabinets there, even. Whether IKEA-design is nice or not is of course a matter of taste and nothing else. And as we say in Sweden: "Taste is like your buttocks - split down the middle". I find the value for money ratio at IKEA extremely high, but the quality is varying. Some of the stuff is top-notch, some of it is rock-bottom. Perhaps the reason is that the stuff isn't manufactured in one place. One factory's got good quality, but the next one doesn't give a hoot in hell about quality. Or so it seems. Food is OK (and cheap) and they've got kindergarten that the kids really like. No, the only thing that really really REALLY pisses me off about IKEA is the "Out of stock" thing you mention. Let me tell you a story: A month ago I went to IKEA to get a few things, one of them was a roller blind. The one I wanted was out of stock. That was really OK with me, I didn't get upset at all - one of the reasons that the stuff is so cheap is that they don't keep much of it in stock - keeping stuff in stock costs money. (Keeping stuff assembled in stock costs even more money. Another reason why it's so cheap.) OK, so I asked a guy there when new roller blinds would show up. "In two weeks" he said. OK, no problem. So two weeks later I go to their website and check that particular roller blind - is it in stock? "Yes", says their website - it's in stock. Great! So I go there to buy it. Is it in stock? F***ING HELL IT IS!!!! That is not OK. So I go see some other guy (or girl) to see what they have to say: - Oh no it's been out of stock for over a month now. - But your web page says it's in stock. [Restrained anger] - Ok let's check the stock .... yeah you're right it says that we've still got two items in stock, but that's not correct. [ Angry staring moment ] - And when will they show up? [Less restrained anger] - In two weeks. - But that's what you said two weeks ago!!!! [Unrestrained anger] :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: How hard can it be to improve that web page they've got so that it doesn't just say Yes and No but gives you a number of items left? Or even better - an estimate 0 - 100% of how likely it is that there really is one item left when you get there? My estimate is that it would take one guy one week, at the most. COME ON!!!! /Simon
This is not a signature.
That's what we did - and we were specifically told to do so by a well-renowned official MS reseller.
This is not a signature.
A late addition: Usula K LeGuin She doens't write extremely good sience fiction - she writes extremely good fiction that happens to be science fiction (and/or fantasy in some cases). This is not a signature.
Thanks for your take! I enjoyed it. I must admit that when I wrote my initial post I really did not see any reason why I should use the .NET framework at all. But after reading all of the reply posts I've come to the same conclusion as you have:
JaseNet wrote:
For this reason and that of performance I mix .Net with C++ dll’s. .Net handles the front end and some of the mundane tasks while the unmanaged dll contains all of the IPR and does all of the work.
This sounds like the way to go for "regular" applications - applications that aren't web-centered. As long as the application has any parts that are either faster or easier implemented in unmanaged code, that is, or that need to be protected from an IPR point of view. Otherwise I no longer see no reason why not to use .NET ... ! :wtf: The angle of reverse engineering / obfuscation is new to me but definitely an important one (or so it sounds to me). /Simon This is not a signature. -- modified at 3:00 Monday 20th March, 2006
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, I hope I'm not totally munging the understanding of the reasons/technology for you
Definitely not. Thanks again! The good thing about MS is that quite often they've done some very right things. :wtf: The really bad thing about MS is that every single time they refuse to tell you why they have done something and instead they drown you in a flood of marketing ******** and hope that you are going to do what they say because they say it instead of doing it because you agree with them ... X| /Simon This is not a signature.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
And what about people who want to use languages other than C++? Or are you saying they should have done .NET plus implement all of the same stuff in native code just for C++ developers?
YES!! That's what I'm saying! But see Marc Clifton's post above, he put in a couple of pointers that I hadn't thought about. /Simon This is not a signature.
Thanks, Marc! Now this is the most sensible thing I've read about .NET anywhere. And I'm not being ironic one bit (hard to tell in these posts). Thanks!!! You've actually made me quite interested in trying out these .NET things after all. And I can still go on writing any amount of stuff I want to in unmanaged code, right? Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bad thing after all ... It still sort of bugs me that they had to build a virtual machine to do it though, but perhaps that was the best choice to be able to support more than just one language? Why couldn't they have done all of this with DLLs and some nice changes to the C++ standard (which seems to be barking up the wrong tree with all the template meta-programming stuff, if you ask me) ... Well that's what they tried with Java (change the standard) and it wasn't the way to go so they had to do come up with some new stuff I guess. Or is there some other profound reason behind the VM stuff? Why else make a VM and not just a framework? :confused: /Simon This is not a signature.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Reflection and attributes are a big plus in .NET though, only way to get close to that kind of power in C++ is to use template metaprogramming, which can get pretty damn hairy.
Template metaprogramming is a pain in the ass. :mad: This reflection thing sounds really, really nice. That's the first thing I've heard about .NET that've really made me want to start using it. But still - why not get that into C++? That would be really cool. /Simon This is not a signature.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
But why do so many C++ developers tend to think that everything should be done in C++?
Oh, that's an old one. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And if you have a hammer that can accomplish anything then you are very tempted to use it at everything, even though there might be better tools for it. /Simon This is not a signature.
Chris Maunder wrote:
As always, choose the right tool for the job.
Oh yes. ... but ... I just can't see why we aren't allowed to eat the cake and have it too? There aren't any points on your list that couldn't be solved in a top-class native C++ framework. That would give us all those points plus the extra flexibility, control and speed (in some cases) of native code. And it wouldn't take too much MS muscle power to accomplish that. Put twenty guys in a room for a year with all the resources they need and voilà. /Simon This is not a signature.
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's a tool, not a religion.
Couldn't agree more.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Use the tool you feel appropriate for the job, but know how to use all the tools in your toolchest.
I completely agree on that one as well. But ... why can't I have the cake and eat it too? Why can't MS continue to improve their native tools as well? It sure isn't for lack of resources - indeed it would cost them very little to get something like the .NET framework (the classes of it) running in native C++. /Simon This is not a signature.
Michael P Butler wrote:
but why do you prefer it?
I guess the short answer is flexibility and control. Sure: for ultimate flexibility and control you should always use assembler :-D There's always a trade-off between flexibility + control on the one hand and ease-of-use on the other hand. But come to think of it, what I don't like about .NET (and Java) is not that it's a VM (after all, the Win32 API is kind-of a VM too, it's only the kernel that isn't). What I don't like is the garbage collection. It's the flexibility and control of pointers that make me reluctant to use .NET. /Simon This is not a signature.
But why don't they give native developers a solid framework like they have for .NET developers? /Simon This is not a signature.
I wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft do that? [Why don't they create a really good framework in native code?]
Ryan Binns wrote:
What language would you do it for? Whichever one they chose, they would have developers in the other languages screaming for blood. The way they have done it, they make the framework available to everyone.
Well:
Ryan Binns wrote:
They know that there are classes of applications that will see no (or little) benefit from moving to a .NET platform.
What languages are those classes of applications written in? My guess is 98% C++ (and 80% of those use MFC). Ergo: the language would be C++. Why not give us something like MFC but 1000% better. I'd say all other languages are much easier to replace with the .NET framework. But being a C++ developer I don't know for sure (oh I'm so humble :rolleyes:). /Simon This is not a signature.
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
If there's a better place to ask this question - feel free to redirect me! Background: I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). Problem: I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. So that's my question to you: why .NET? Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the future for a large range of applications. Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.