TWENTY YEARS, only a few tears.

TWENTY YEARS, only a few tears.

helped my "It is an error to use a section registered as allowDefinition='MachineToApplication' beyond application level..." this morning

It is an error to use a section registered as allowDefinition='MachineToApplication' beyond application level. This error can be caused by a virtual directory not being configured as an application in IIS.

Instead of moving my web.config from the sub-directory to the root, I copied it, and thus, there were two of the same file, one in the root, and one in the sub-directory. In my case, deleting the file from the sub-directory solved the problem, but the explanation below is a slightly more abstract explanation of the nature of the error that I found helpful.

Particularly #2:
"2. When you have sub-directories in your application, you can have web.config file for the sub-directory. However, there are certain properties which cannot be set in the web.config of the sub-directory such as authentication, session state (you may see that the error message shows the line number where the authentication or sessionstate is declared in the web.config of the sub-directory). The reason is, these settings cannot be overridden at the sub-directory level unless the sub-directory is also configured as an application (as mentioned in the above point).

Mostly we have the practice of adding web.config in the sub-directory if we want to protect access to the sub-directory files (say, the directory is admin and we wish to protect the admin pages from unathorized users).

But actually, this can be achieved in the web.config at the application's root level itself, by specifing the location path tags and authorization, as follows:-

<location path="Admin">
   <system.web>
      <authorization>
         <allow roles="administrators" />
         <deny users="*" />
      </authorization>
   </system.web>
</location>

However, if you wish to have a web.config at the sub-directory level and protect the sub-directory, you can just specify the Authorization mode as follows:-

<configuration>
   <system.web>
      <authorization>
         <allow roles="administrators" />
         <deny users="*" />
      </authorization>
   </system.web>
</configuration>

Thus you can protect the sub-directory from unauthorized access."

helped my HTTP Error 500.22 this morning

Breaking Changes for ASP.NET 2.0 applications running in Integrated mode on IIS 7.0

AppCmd Migrate Config and HTTP Error 500.22

saved my sanity this morning from "Destination Folder Access Denied" error

Destination Folder Access Denied

saved my IIS server this morning and fixed my "503 Service Unavailable" error

Where did my IIS7 server go?

Free

Shamelessly following this Anderson, Gladwell, Godin debate, I think Mitch Ratcliffe actually got it right, taken from booksahead:

"In a constantly churning market, “Free” is just a way to destroy your competitor, but it doesn’t make a business sustainable."

and so does Mark Cuban, taken from Blog Maverick:

"We give you something free, you give us something that costs you nothing.

The music is often free, but it is NEVER freely distributed.

The TV and Movie business are realizing this is the case. Hence TV Anywhere. They will give you access to content for free if you are already a customer of their distributors. And before you IT ALL HAS TO BE FREE BIGOTS EXPLODE, even google requires you have internet access of some kind, which costs you in subscription fees , taxes or coffee.

Newspapers are catching flack for saying there should be copyrights on their news reports and the summaries. They are right. Their work, their ability to control it. They should have the right to control where it appears. If, as Chris Anderson and others suggest, there will be plenty of content creators and the quality of the work is sufficient for consumers of that content, then there will be plenty of open source content and it shouldnt matter what the newspapers request for protection. The market will decide.

Newspapers are also catching flack for saying they dont want their content openly distributed. On this point, they are correct again. They should have complete control over where it is distributed. They should have the ability to choose where it is offered for free.

Not only should they have this control, taking back this control is the exact right business move. Im not saying it will save newspapers or magazines, it wont. But it will make their website offerings stronger in the long run. If Im them, I take the risk that the “printed” content business follows the path of the music industry.

In other words, you take on the role of identifying the best in breed for your business and use your resources to help those talented people figure out how to make money for themselves and for you. You provide your resources and knowledge to make them smarter and then you go and compete against the masses.

In the long run, printed content producers should have a brand, and use their institutional knowledge, their core competencies and ability to procure, improve and market to maximize the value of their brands and the perceived value of their content. Whether its on a central website, a co produced website, in print or on a hologram in the evening sky, I should go to the NY Times because they have demonstrated to me that they have the very best articles on the subjects I am looking for. That they are the best source for breaking news about the topics I care about. THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE I DONT HAVE THE CHOICE OF GETTING IT ANYWHERE ELSE BUT WHERE THEY DICTATE. If they cant make their content stand out from the open source masses and convince enough people to transact with them in a way that makes them money they dont deserve to exist.

They should distribute their content for Free where they believe it maximizes return, but should do everything possible to keep it from being distributed Freely."

advice

Kind of incredible advice, really:

When I started high school my mother told me "Use your best judgment, and remember, nobody likes a prude."

Never leave your house without enough money to get back by yourself. (advice given when I started dating. I view it as a call to independence to this day.)