Search Results

Search found 24792 results on 992 pages for 'chris may'.

Page 272/992 | < Previous Page | 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279  | Next Page >

  • Link instead of Attaching

    - by Daniel Moth
    With email storage not being an issue in many companies (I think I currently have 25GB of storage on my email account, I don’t even think about storage), this encourages bad behaviors such as liberally attaching office documents to emails instead of sharing a link to the document in SharePoint or SkyDrive or some file share etc. Attaching a file admittedly has its usage scenarios too, but it should not be the default. I thought I'd list the reasons why sharing a link can be better than attaching files directly. In no particular order: Better Review. It allows multiple recipients to review the file and their comments are aggregated into a single document. The alternative is everyone having to detach the document, add their comments, then send back to you, and then you have to collate. Wirth the alternative, you also potentially miss out on recipients reading comments from other recipients. Always up to date. The attachment becomes a fork instead of an always up to date document. For example, you send the email on Thursday, I only open it on Tuesday: between those days you could have made updates that now I am missing because you decided to share a link instead of an attachment. Better bookmarking. When I need to find that document you shared, you are forcing me to search through my email (I may not even be running outlook), instead of opening the link which I have bookmarked in my browser or my collection of links in my OneNote or from the recent/pinned links of the office app on my task bar, etc. Can control access. If someone accidentally or naively forwards your link to someone outside your group/org who you’d prefer not to have access to it, the location of the document can be protected with specific access control. Can add more recipients. If someone adds people to the email thread in outlook, your attachment doesn't get re-attached - instead, the person added is left without the attachment unless someone remembers to re-attach it. If it was a link, they are immediately caught up without further actions. Enable Discovery. If you put it on a share, I may be able to discover other cool stuff that lives alongside that document. Save on storage. So this doesn't apply to me given my opening statement, but if in your company you do have such limitations, attaching files eats up storage on all recipients accounts and will also get "lost" when those people archive email (and lose completely at some point if they follow the company retention policy). Like I said, attachments do have their place, but they should be an explicit choice for explicit reasons rather than the default. Comments about this post by Daniel Moth welcome at the original blog.

    Read the article

  • When Using Social Networking Sites Exercise Caution

    With more people using social networking sites there is also an increase in the various threats people may encounter online. Unfortunately population masses tend to attract people with less than nobl... [Author: TJ Philpott - Computers and Internet - April 14, 2010]

    Read the article

  • Toronto SharePoint User Group: Tonight Cancelled, Next Meeting: June 16

    - by erobillard
    Apologies all, notification was to go out sooner but apparently we're having technical difficulties so please help spread the word: The May meeting (tonight) is cancelled, leaving you free to enjoy the summery Toronto evening. Enjoy! Next month on Wednesday, June 16 , TSPUG is back with not one, but two , count'em two presentations: First up will be Matthew Pakula from AvePoint talking about their terrific tools for MOSS 2007 and SPS 2010. Then I will reveal the secret toolkit I use to help companies...(read more)

    Read the article

  • pykaraoke on xp pro

    - by user170175
    i have dell laptops they all have xp-pro on them.what is happening is i have pykaraoke 7.1 on a disk and installed it on a couple of laptops and it works great.the other laptops say pykaraoke bad configeration,reinstall may fix this.i do that and i8t still doesnt work says the same thing.i even copyed the program from a working laptop and that didnt work.it doesnt make cence that it works on some but not the others.

    Read the article

  • Cloud Infrastructure has a new standard

    - by macoracle
    I have been working for more than two years now in the DMTF working group tasked with creating a Cloud Management standard. That work has culminated in the release today of the Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface (CIMI) version 1.0 by the DMTF. CIMI is a single interface that a cloud consumer can use to manage their cloud infrastructure in multiple clouds. As CIMI is adopted by the cloud vendors, no more will you need to adapt client code to each of the proprietary interfaces from these multiple vendors. Unlike a de facto standard where typically one vendor has change control over the interface, and everyone else has to reverse engineer the inner workings of it, CIMI is a de jure standard that is under change control of a standards body. One reason the standard took two years to create is that we factored in use cases, requirements and contributed APIs from multiple vendors. These vendors have products shipping today and as a result CIMI has a strong foundation in real world experience. What does CIMI allow? CIMI is both a model for the resources (computing, storage networking) in the cloud as well as a RESTful protocol binding to HTTP. This means that to create a Machine (guest VM) for example, the client creates a “document” that represents the Machine resource and sends it to the server using HTTP. CIMI allows the resources to be encoded in either JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) or the eXentsible Markup Language (XML). CIMI provides a model for the resources that can be mapped to any existing cloud infrastructure offering on the market. There are some features in CIMI that may not be supported by every cloud, but CIMI also supports the discovery of which features are implemented. This means that you can still have a client that works across multiple clouds and is able to take full advantage of the features in each of them. Isn’t it too early for a standard? A key feature of a successful standard is that it allows for compatible extensions to occur within the core framework of the interface itself. CIMI’s feature discovery (through metadata) is used to convey to the client that additional features that may be vendor specific have been implemented. As multiple vendors implement such features, they become candidates to add the future versions of CIMI. Thus innovation can continue in the cloud space without being slowed down by a lowest common denominator type of specification. Since CIMI was developed in the open by dozens of stakeholders who are already implementing infrastructure clouds, I expect to CIMI being adopted by these same companies and others over the next year or two. Cloud Customers who can see the benefit of this standard should start to ask their cloud vendors to show a CIMI implementation in their roadmap.  For more information on CIMI and the DMTF's other cloud efforts, go to: http://dmtf.org/cloud

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2012 Service Pack 2 is available - but there's a catch!

    - by AaronBertrand
    Service Pack 2 is available: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43340 The build number is 11.0.5058, and this includes fixes up to and including SQL Server 2012 SP1 CU #9. (The complete list of fixes is exhaustive, including all fixes from SP1 CU #1 -> #9, but the post-CU #9 fixes are listed here: http://support.microsoft.com/KB/2958429 However, if you may be affected by the regression bug I talked about earlier today , which could lead to data loss or corruption during online...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How are Reads Distributed in a Workload

    - by Bill Graziano
    People have uploaded nearly one millions rows of trace data to TraceTune.  That’s enough data to start to look at the results in aggregate.  The first thing I want to look at is logical reads.  This is the easiest metric to identify and fix. When you upload a trace, I rank each statement based on the total number of logical reads.  I also calculate each statement’s percentage of the total logical reads.  I do the same thing for CPU, duration and logical writes.  When you view a statement you can see all the details like this: This single statement consumed 61.4% of the total logical reads on the system while we were tracing it.  I also wanted to see the distribution of reads across statements.  That graph looks like this: On average, the highest ranked statement consumed just under 50% of the reads on the system.  When I tune a system, I’m usually starting in one of two modes: this “piece” is slow or the whole system is slow.  If a given piece (screen, report, query, etc.) is slow you can usually find the specific statements behind it and tune it.  You can make that individual piece faster but you may not affect the whole system. When you’re trying to speed up an entire server you need to identity those queries that are using the most disk resources in aggregate.  Fixing those will make them faster and it will leave more disk throughput for the rest of the queries. Here are some of the things I’ve learned querying this data: The highest ranked query averages just under 50% of the total reads on the system. The top 3 ranked queries average 73% of the total reads on the system. The top 10 ranked queries average 91% of the total reads on the system. Remember these are averages across all the traces that have been uploaded.  And I’m guessing that people mainly upload traces where there are performance problems so your mileage may vary. I also learned that slow queries aren’t the problem.  Before I wrote ClearTrace I used to identify queries by filtering on high logical reads using Profiler.  That picked out individual queries but those rarely ran often enough to put a large load on the system. If you look at the execution count by rank you’d see that the highest ranked queries also have the highest execution counts.  The graph would look very similar to the one above but flatter.  These queries don’t look that bad individually but run so often that they hog the disk capacity. The take away from all this is that you really should be tuning the top 10 queries if you want to make your system faster.  Tuning individually slow queries will help those specific queries but won’t have much impact on the system as a whole.

    Read the article

  • WebCenter Content Web Search Performance: Do you really need that folder path info?

    - by Nicolas Montoya
    End-users want content at their fingertips at the speed of thought if possible. When running search operations in the WebCenter Conter Web Interface every second or fraction of a second improvement does matter. When doing some trace analysis on the systemdatabase tracing on a customer environment, we came across some SQL queries that were unnecessarily being triggered! These were related to determining the folder path for every entry part of the search result set. However, this folder path was not even being used as part of the displayed information in the user interface.Why was the folder path information being collected when it was not even displayed in the UI? We found that the configuration parameter 'FolderPathInSearchResults' was set to 'true' under Administration > Admin Server > General Configuration > Additional Configuration Variables as shown below:When executing a quicksearch by keyword we were getting 100 out of 2280 entries in the first page of the result set.When thera 'FolderPathInSearchResults' configuration parameter is set to 'true', the following queries appear in the systemdatabase tracing:100 executions for a query on the FolderFiles table for each of the documents displayed in the first page:>systemdatabase/6       12.13 11:17:48.188      IdcServer-199   1.45 ms. SELECT * FROM FolderFiles WHERE dDocName='SLC02VGVUSORAC140641' AND fLinkRank=0[Executed. Returned row(s): true]382 executions for a query of the folders tables - most of the documents that match the keyword criteria are at a folder depth level of three or four:>systemdatabase/6       12.13 11:17:48.114      IdcServer-199   2.57 ms. SELECT FolderFolders.*,FolderMetaDefaults.* FROM FolderFolders,FolderMetaDefaults WHERE FolderFolders.fFolderGUID=FolderMetaDefaults.fFolderGUID(+) AND((FolderFolders.fFolderGUID = '1EB8E527E19B09ED3FE82EE310AEA13A' ) )[Executed.Returned row(s): true]By setting this 'FolderPathInSearchResults' configuration parameter to 'false', the above queries were no longer reported in the Server Output System Audit Information.Now, let's consider a practical scenario:Search result set page = 100Average folder depth der document in the search result set: 5The number of folder path related queries will be: 100 + 5*500 = 600If each query takes slightly over 3 ms. You would have 2000 ms (2 seconds) spent in server time to get this information.The overall performance impact goes beyond seerver time execution, as this information needs to travel from the server to the browser. If the documents are further nested into the folder hierarchy, additional hundreds of queries may be executed. If folder path is not being displayed in the end-user interface profile, your system may be better of with the 'FolderPathInSearchResults' configuration parameter disabled.

    Read the article

  • Review of Some Low Cost Web Hosting Services

    Low cost web hosting services are basically meant for small sized and medium sized enterprises as they are provided at highly affordable and lower costs. The web hosting services that are provided at... [Author: John Anthony - Computers and Internet - May 18, 2010]

    Read the article

  • Problem Solving vs. Solution Finding

    - by ryanabr
    By enlarge, most developers fall into these two camps I will try to explain what I mean by way of example. A manager gives the developer a task that is communicated like this: “Figure out why control A is not loading on this form”. Now, right there it could be argued that the manager should probably have given better direction and said something more like: “Control A is not loading on the Form, fix it”. They might sound like the same thing to most people, but the first statement will have the developer problem solving the reason why it is failing. The second statement should have the developer looking for the solution to make it work, not focus on why it is broken. In the end, they might be the same thing, but I usually see the first approach take way longer than the second approach. The Problem Solver: The problem solver’s approach to fixing something that is broken is likely to take the error or behavior that is being observed and start to research it using a tool like Google, or any other search engine. 7/10 times this will yield results for the most common of issues. The challenge is in the other 30% of issues that will take the problem solver down the rabbit hole and cause them not to surface for days on end while every avenue is explored for the cause of the problem. In the end, they will probably find the cause of the issue and resolve it, but the cost can be days, or weeks of work. The Solution Finder: The solution finder’s approach to a problem will begin the same way the Problem Solver’s approach will. The difference comes in the more difficult cases. Rather than stick to the pure “This has to work so I am going to work with it until it does” approach, the Solution Finder will look for other ways to get the requirements satisfied that may or may not be using the original approach. For example. there are two area of an application of externally equivalent features, meaning that from a user’s perspective, the behavior is the same. So, say that for whatever reason, area A is now not working, but area B is working. The Problem Solver will dig in to see why area A is broken, where the Solution Finder will investigate to see what is the difference between the two areas and solve the problem by potentially working around it. The other notable difference between the two types of developers described is what point they reach before they re-emerge from their task. The problem solver will likely emerge with a triumphant “I have found the problem” where as the Solution Finder will emerge with the more useful “I have the solution”. Conclusion At the end of the day, users are what drives features in software development. With out users there is no need for software. In todays world of software development with so many tools to use, and generally tight schedules I believe that a work around to a problem that takes 8 hours vs. the more pure solution to the problem that takes 40 hours is a more fruitful approach.

    Read the article

  • Rating Sites Development with ASPDOTNET

    Rating people, their skills, their abilities, their look, etc. are very old activity in human being history. It goes date back in 19th century that people used such rating system. The best use of rat... [Author: Jessica Woodson - Computers and Internet - May 10, 2010]

    Read the article

  • Working with legacy data

    - by John Paul Cook
    We encounter legacy data as a part of life. Colleges and universities have transcript records dating back decades or even centuries. Real estate property records in the United States go as far back as Spanish and British land grants in the 1500s. Very old records are completely paper based and may be completely manually prepared, perhaps typed on a typewriter or written in longhand with a quill pen. How long should transcripts be retained? Nola Ochs graduated from college at age 95 (can you imagine...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Importance of Attractive Website Footer

    Normally you website visitors can not see your website footer if that is not attractive one. However, you can sale your products or get online leads using attractive website footer. If your intention... [Author: Bryan Young - Web Design and Development - May 12, 2010]

    Read the article

  • Heart Bleed Remains a Problem

    - by TATWORTH
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TATWORTH/archive/2014/06/04/heart-bleed-remains-a-problem.aspxPlease not the report at http://www.vipreantivirus.com/newsletters/2014/index.html by the Vipre team that Heart Bleed remains a problem. Very significantly the report states: “Graham concluded that roughly 318,000 servers were still vulnerable to Heartbleed in May -- a figure that is about half the number of vulnerable servers he found when Heartbleed first became public.”

    Read the article

  • How to Build a Website With 2 Simple Tools

    Building your own web page or website shouldn't be as difficult a process as you may at first have thought. As with other various issues in life, the simple act of merely believing that everything pertaining to constructing an internet website is beyond your capabilities only make things worse than they actually are.

    Read the article

  • Applying DDD principles in a RESTish web service

    - by Andy
    I am developing an RESTish web service. I think I got the idea of the difference between aggregation and composition. Aggregation does not enforce lifecycle/scope on the objects it references. Composition does enforce lifecycle/scope on the objects it contain/own. If I delete a composite object then all the objects it contain/own are deleted as well, while the deleting an aggregate root does not delete referenced objects. 1) If it is true that deleting aggregate roots does not necessary delete referenced objects, what sense does it make to not have a repository for the references objects? Or are aggregate roots as a term referring to what is known as composite object? 2) When you create an web service you will have multiple endpoints, in my case I have one entity Book and another named Comment. It does not make sense to leave the comments in my application if the book is deleted. Therefore, book is a composite object. I guess I should not have a repository for comments since that would break the enforcement of lifecycle and rules that the book class may have. However I have URL such as (examples only): GET /books/1/comments POST /books/1/comments Now, if I do not have a repository for comments, does that mean I have to load the book object and then return the referenced comments? Am I allowed to return a list of Comment entities from the BookRepository, does that make sense? The repository for Book may eventually become rather big with all sorts of methods. Am I allowed to write JPQL (JPA queries) that targets comments and not books inside the repository? What about pagination and filtering of comments. When adding a new comment triggered by the POST endpoint, do you need to load the book, add the comment to the book, and then update the whole book object? What I am currently doing is having a own CommentRepository, even though the comments are deleted with the book. I could need some direction on how to do it correct. Since you are exposing not only root objects in RESTish services I wonder how to handle this at the backend. I am using Hibernate and Spring.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft's FUD goes mobile

    <b>The Register:</b> "But why does Microsoft make money from Google's software? Android is based on open source software - and Microsoft has long raised fears that aspects of Linux may infringe on its patents."

    Read the article

  • Google Street View logs WiFi networks, Mac addresses

    <b>The Register:</b> "Google's roving Street View spycam may blur your face, but it's got your number. The Street View service is under fire in Germany for scanning private WLAN networks, and recording users' unique Mac (Media Access Control) addresses, as the car trundles along."

    Read the article

  • Help identify the pattern for reacting on updates

    - by Mike
    There's an entity that gets updated from external sources. Update events are at random intervals. And the entity has to be processed once updated. Multiple updates may be multiplexed. In other words there's a need for the most current state of entity to be processed. There's a point of no-return during processing where the current state (and the state is consistent i.e. no partial update is made) of entity is saved somewhere else and processing goes on independently of any arriving updates. Every consequent set of updates has to trigger processing i.e. system should not forget about updates. And for each entity there should be no more than one running processing (before the point of no-return) i.e. the entity state should not be processed more than once. So what I'm looking for is a pattern to cancel current processing before the point of no return or abandon processing results if an update arrives. The main challenge is to minimize race conditions and maintain integrity. The entity sits mainly in database with some files on disk. And the system is in .NET with web-services and message queues. What comes to my mind is a database queue-like table. An arriving update inserts row in that table and the processing is launched. The processing gathers necessary data before the point of no-return and once it reaches this barrier it looks into the queue table and checks whether there're more recent updates for the entity. If there are new updates the processing simply shuts down and its data is discarded. Otherwise the processing data is persisted and it goes beyond the point of no-return. Though it looks like a solution to me it is not quite elegant and I believe this scenario may be supported by some sort of middleware. If I would use message queues for this then there's a need to access the queue API in the point of no-return to check for the existence of new messages. And this approach also lacks elegance. Is there a name for this pattern and an existing solution?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279  | Next Page >