Comments for Neblog http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog Welcome to the Nebula Mon, 12 May 2008 00:38:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 Comment on What is “The Linux Desktop” anyway? by Tony Gravagno http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2008/05/linuxdesktop1.html#comment-135 Tony Gravagno Fri, 09 May 2008 00:34:13 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2008/05/linuxdesktop1.html#comment-135 <p>Good comments, Joseba, thanks. Pete Schellenbach is already working on AccuTerm for Linux. I know companies are cost-conscious and Windows can be a significant part of the budget. For some users who do not do anything but data entry, Linux is fine, and so is a thin-client appliance ($300US, 5 second boot, no software to maintain or mess up). I think average office workers are still too unfamiliar with Linux to put it on the desktop, so there is a training factor, but yes, that's a good place to start getting people familiar with it too.</p> <p>For guys like us, I don't think the Windows desktop will go away even if we use a Linux desktop for common tasks. Clients send me VPN client software, Remote Desktop configurations, Word, Excel, and Visio documents, and from time to time I get other files and requests that require the use of Windows. I've been told by a couple of our Linux gear-head friends that they can't open files that I've sent them. Well, I think they're trying to make a statement about choice rather than capability, and hearing they can't do something doesn't endear me to their platform, it only keeps me away. But my point here is that companies that adopt Linux now should be prepared for some amount of "can't do that" feedback. Personally I would really like to get a list of issues that people run into with Linux. I suspect the list is small but it would be good to have for anyone considering Linux desktop deployment.</p> Good comments, Joseba, thanks. Pete Schellenbach is already working on AccuTerm for Linux. I know companies are cost-conscious and Windows can be a significant part of the budget. For some users who do not do anything but data entry, Linux is fine, and so is a thin-client appliance ($300US, 5 second boot, no software to maintain or mess up). I think average office workers are still too unfamiliar with Linux to put it on the desktop, so there is a training factor, but yes, that’s a good place to start getting people familiar with it too.

For guys like us, I don’t think the Windows desktop will go away even if we use a Linux desktop for common tasks. Clients send me VPN client software, Remote Desktop configurations, Word, Excel, and Visio documents, and from time to time I get other files and requests that require the use of Windows. I’ve been told by a couple of our Linux gear-head friends that they can’t open files that I’ve sent them. Well, I think they’re trying to make a statement about choice rather than capability, and hearing they can’t do something doesn’t endear me to their platform, it only keeps me away. But my point here is that companies that adopt Linux now should be prepared for some amount of "can’t do that" feedback. Personally I would really like to get a list of issues that people run into with Linux. I suspect the list is small but it would be good to have for anyone considering Linux desktop deployment.

]]> Comment on What is “The Linux Desktop” anyway? by jra http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2008/05/linuxdesktop1.html#comment-134 jra Thu, 08 May 2008 21:52:08 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2008/05/linuxdesktop1.html#comment-134 I complete agree with you Tony. But i think they will be a good corner for a desktop in Linux more than grandfathers. When i talk with TI people in mv sites, i always find comments as:It is imposible and very expensive to mantain all that windows boxes around the mv server.Actually, many many people still use in our market a Windows PC almost as and "Old green screen", with some data transfer to Excel, a little use of Word, e-mail, a web navigator and an EMULATOR with transfer capabilities and predefined keys.It should be very interesting to configure a Linux Desktop box with f.i.:    Open Office    Firefox    Thunderbirdand......    the key, something like Accuterm or Wintegrate in Linux.With this, the effective cost of a seat in the mv environment will be much more cheap, with the same usability that the majority of the seats working now and with less problems.Who will write that Accu_WIntegLinux? I complete agree with you Tony. But i think they will be a good corner for a desktop in Linux more than grandfathers. When i talk with TI people in mv sites, i always find comments as:It is imposible and very expensive to mantain all that windows boxes around the mv server.Actually, many many people still use in our market a Windows PC almost as and "Old green screen", with some data transfer to Excel, a little use of Word, e-mail, a web navigator and an EMULATOR with transfer capabilities and predefined keys.It should be very interesting to configure a Linux Desktop box with f.i.:    Open Office    Firefox    Thunderbirdand……    the key, something like Accuterm or Wintegrate in Linux.With this, the effective cost of a seat in the mv environment will be much more cheap, with the same usability that the majority of the seats working now and with less problems.Who will write that Accu_WIntegLinux?

]]> Comment on Nebula MV ASP.NET Starter Kit? by excalibur21 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/mv/2008/05/starterkit1.html#comment-132 excalibur21 Sat, 03 May 2008 05:25:27 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/mv/2008/05/starterkit1.html#comment-132 Great Idea will be much appreciated Great Idea will be much appreciated

]]> Comment on Outlook Appointments from MV by Tony Gravagno http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/general/2006/11/outlookappt1.html#comment-130 Tony Gravagno Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:26:55 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/general/2006/11/outlookappt1.html#comment-130 <p>Tassie, thanks for the comments. I started working with the Outlook object model with Outlook 2002 / XP. Doing anything significant with Outlook development really requires 2003, and 2007 has exceptional features for development. As of v2007, Outlook and the other MS Office applications are now real first class citizens in the toolkit. So I would prefer to use 2007 for Office development but 2003 is a fine place to start.</p> <p>I believe the client mentioned in this blog has Exchange Server 2000. I could be wrong. I don't use Exchange so for me every task requires a bit of research, and may result in a "better to upgrade" conclusion. The problem is not that doing things with v2000 is impossible but that it would be more difficult, perhaps unstable on that platform, and a later release might have tools that allow new features to be implemented much more easily.</p> <p>Yes, the security needs to be addressed for authorized applications. Suffice to say here, there are tools that can be used to develop without getting interrupted by security - which truly is there to prevent unauthorized people from easily doing exactly what we're doing here.</p> <p>If you'd like to discuss how various products might help you to accomplish your various business goals, please email. Or, you are welcome to open discussions in our forum. Thanks again!</p> Tassie, thanks for the comments. I started working with the Outlook object model with Outlook 2002 / XP. Doing anything significant with Outlook development really requires 2003, and 2007 has exceptional features for development. As of v2007, Outlook and the other MS Office applications are now real first class citizens in the toolkit. So I would prefer to use 2007 for Office development but 2003 is a fine place to start.

I believe the client mentioned in this blog has Exchange Server 2000. I could be wrong. I don’t use Exchange so for me every task requires a bit of research, and may result in a "better to upgrade" conclusion. The problem is not that doing things with v2000 is impossible but that it would be more difficult, perhaps unstable on that platform, and a later release might have tools that allow new features to be implemented much more easily.

Yes, the security needs to be addressed for authorized applications. Suffice to say here, there are tools that can be used to develop without getting interrupted by security - which truly is there to prevent unauthorized people from easily doing exactly what we’re doing here.

If you’d like to discuss how various products might help you to accomplish your various business goals, please email. Or, you are welcome to open discussions in our forum. Thanks again!

]]> Comment on Outlook Appointments from MV by Tassie http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/general/2006/11/outlookappt1.html#comment-129 Tassie Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:54:03 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/general/2006/11/outlookappt1.html#comment-129 Tony, No mention on Outlook / Exchange versions that your example has had success with. I have recently hit the issues of increased security with Outlook 2003 vs. 2000 when our department began getting "new" PCs. We still have Win2000 with Office 2000 but our clients have XP with Office 2003. I am keen to use this type of functionality with government staff booking pool vehicles from a DesignBais GUI back to a Universe MV database on Sun box. Your other tools<strong><em> MV.net</em></strong> and <strong><em>NebulaXlite</em></strong> / <strong><em>NebulaXchange</em></strong> have got my interest in these areas as we may be forced to link with a Microsoft Content management system.  We have not previously linked directly to the MV environment apart from flat file exports. regards, Tassie Tony,
No mention on Outlook / Exchange versions that your example has had success with. I have recently hit the issues of increased security with Outlook 2003 vs. 2000 when our department began getting "new" PCs. We still have Win2000 with Office 2000 but our clients have XP with Office 2003.
I am keen to use this type of functionality with government staff booking pool vehicles from a DesignBais GUI back to a Universe MV database on Sun box.
Your other tools MV.net and NebulaXlite / NebulaXchange have got my interest in these areas as we may be forced to link with a Microsoft Content management system.  We have not previously linked directly to the MV environment apart from flat file exports.
regards,
Tassie

]]> Comment on D3 FlashBASIC History and Usage by cfontaine http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/mv/2008/04/d3flash1.html#comment-128 cfontaine Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:43:11 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/mv/2008/04/d3flash1.html#comment-128 Thanks for this interesting history and usage of flashbasic. Thanks for this interesting history and usage of flashbasic.

]]> Comment on Application Virtualization Part 2 by jra http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2008/02/application-virtualization2.html#comment-116 jra Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:47:49 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2008/02/application-virtualization2.html#comment-116 I have a friend that has vmWare installed in two computers, one at home and one at the office. The he has installed a Linux virtual machine with D3 on a USB hard drive.He takes the drive from one machine to another without problems. I have a friend that has vmWare installed in two computers, one at home and one at the office. The he has installed a Linux virtual machine with D3 on a USB hard drive.He takes the drive from one machine to another without problems.

]]> Comment on Mine Field of Excel Development Tools - Part 6 by Tony Gravagno http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2007/12/excel-tools6.html#comment-110 Tony Gravagno Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:29:35 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2007/12/excel-tools6.html#comment-110 Holy Cow, that looks so promising!  Thanks Tim, I'll check it out within the next couple weeks (travelling). Holy Cow, that looks so promising!  Thanks Tim, I’ll check it out within the next couple weeks (travelling).

]]> Comment on Mine Field of Excel Development Tools - Part 6 by tinymoth http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2007/12/excel-tools6.html#comment-109 tinymoth Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:48:41 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2007/12/excel-tools6.html#comment-109 Hi, KB908002 (<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/908002" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/kb/908002</a>) seems to fix the problems, sort of. I had the same problem you did. Plenty of simple examples that worked on the VS machine that failed to work on a target without any messages anywhere! Although I haven't tested the truth of it yet, the KB does state you need to run the patches for each user :-( Good luck, Tim Hi,
KB908002 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/908002) seems to fix the problems, sort of.
I had the same problem you did. Plenty of simple examples that worked on the VS machine that failed to work on a target without any messages anywhere!
Although I haven’t tested the truth of it yet, the KB does state you need to run the patches for each user :-(
Good luck,
Tim

]]> Comment on Mine Field of Excel Development Tools - Part 5 by Tony Gravagno http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2007/11/excel-tools5.html#comment-108 Tony Gravagno Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:10:00 +0000 http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog/tech/2007/11/excel-tools5.html#comment-108 <p>I have found that there are specific registry keys that are not set on the target box, though they are set on the source/development box. My first guess was that something in the Setup project wasn't creating the keys, but then the keys do get created in another system with VS and the .NET SDK vs the redistributable runtimes (.NET and Office PIAs). I'll post article #6 in a few days with details, and I'll check to see if manually loading the keys to the target gets it to work.</p> <p>It's also interesting that the missing keys aren't for the shim but for the function code itself - and that's confusing since this was added to the Setup as part of the Primary Output. I know the shim is executed because I can add the shim to Excel addins, and the Programmable registry key gets created from the shim.</p> <p>About Extensibility.DLL - yeah, I mentioned that in step 20 of Part 5 here, but I haven't tried adding it manually yet. There are so many "maybe I should try this" permutations and very little time to experiment with change, build, deploy, uninstall old version, install new, test, fail, go back.</p> <p>About click-once: I think with a shim a new assembly for functions can simply substitute the original, as long as there are no versioning issues. If the code is binary compatible and the GUIDs are the same, there's nothing to differentiate an old DLL from a new one. In this case the shim is managed code calling to our managed code, so all of those rules apply, including click-once. If you're not using a shim then there may be an issue with COM calling a different managed assembly (though I don't think so) and that could mandate full re-installs for users.</p> <p>HTH</p> I have found that there are specific registry keys that are not set on the target box, though they are set on the source/development box. My first guess was that something in the Setup project wasn’t creating the keys, but then the keys do get created in another system with VS and the .NET SDK vs the redistributable runtimes (.NET and Office PIAs). I’ll post article #6 in a few days with details, and I’ll check to see if manually loading the keys to the target gets it to work.

It’s also interesting that the missing keys aren’t for the shim but for the function code itself - and that’s confusing since this was added to the Setup as part of the Primary Output. I know the shim is executed because I can add the shim to Excel addins, and the Programmable registry key gets created from the shim.

About Extensibility.DLL - yeah, I mentioned that in step 20 of Part 5 here, but I haven’t tried adding it manually yet. There are so many "maybe I should try this" permutations and very little time to experiment with change, build, deploy, uninstall old version, install new, test, fail, go back.

About click-once: I think with a shim a new assembly for functions can simply substitute the original, as long as there are no versioning issues. If the code is binary compatible and the GUIDs are the same, there’s nothing to differentiate an old DLL from a new one. In this case the shim is managed code calling to our managed code, so all of those rules apply, including click-once. If you’re not using a shim then there may be an issue with COM calling a different managed assembly (though I don’t think so) and that could mandate full re-installs for users.

HTH

]]>