[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.setup

Framework 3.0 SP1 installation wiped out my WCF services

zackary.evans

2/18/2008 5:36:00 PM


I just installed the .Net 3.0 SP1 to our QA application servers
running 2003 Server. After installation, I can no longer use or even
browse to the WCF services installed to those machines. Those services
are being hosted by IIS (using xxxxx.svc files). The error I am
getting is
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)

I get the same error whether browsing from the machine locally or
externally. I tried uninstalling the SP, but it did not "undo" what it
did.

The only thing that stuck out to me as a cause was this message in the
system event log, which was created at the time of installation -
"Reservation for namespace identified by URL prefix
http://+:80/Temporary_Listen_Addresses/ was successfully deleted." and
then "Reservation for namespace identified by URL prefix
http://+:80/Temporary_Listen_Addresses/ was successfully added."
4 Answers

Zapp Brannigan

6/5/2011 4:22:00 PM

0

Logician wrote:
> On Jun 5, 11:29 am, "Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote:
>> Logician wrote:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1394402/Britai......
>>
>>> The UK King of judging tried to get a twitter user jailed.
>>
>>> Who needs free speech?
>>
>> "Free speech" doesn't mean "The right to anonymously defame other
>> people",
>> and never has done.
>>
>> The Twatter accused Cowell of criminal dishonesty. Cowell has every right
>> to challenge that, and defend his reputation.
>
> Read the article. It says The Show invented the story to boost
> figures, that means Cowell and his team invented the story and then
> gave false information to the Police. That is very illegal.

If* Cowell's people confected this allegation and then reported it to the
Police for a stunt, they are at risk of criminal prosecution (quite
rightly). But that makes no difference to my point above - defaming
someone via Twatter doesn't give you some magical immunity from the law.

(* Any claim relying on the Daily Mail as source has to be taken with a
lorryload of salt)


allantracy

6/5/2011 5:33:00 PM

0

>
> "Free speech" doesn't mean "The right to anonymously defame other people",
> and never has done.
>
> The Twatter accused Cowell of criminal dishonesty.  Cowell has every right
> to challenge that, and defend his reputation.

Trouble is, if you play with fire you will get burned.

If you haven’t realise already, 99.9% of just about everything that
gets published on Cowell’s shows are fabricated publicity stunts,
designed to keep his shows on the front pages, all coming from within
his own organisation.

As if on cue, today, surprise surprise it appears Cheryl Cole has got
her job back on the US version of X-Factor, so we’ve had a week of
headlines on her sacking and now no doubt we will we get another
week’s worth on her reinstatement.

It’s all a game easy copy for the tabloids and free publicity for
Cowell but the downside is that more then one can play at that game
and it’s no good shouting. “Fire” when you’ve had the fire brigade out
fifteen time this month already.

Zapp Brannigan

6/5/2011 5:41:00 PM

0

allantracy wrote:
>> "Free speech" doesn't mean "The right to anonymously defame other
>> people",
>> and never has done.
>>
>> The Twatter accused Cowell of criminal dishonesty. Cowell has every right
>> to challenge that, and defend his reputation.
>
> Trouble is, if you play with fire you will get burned.
>
> If you haven?t realise already, 99.9% of just about everything that
> gets published on Cowell?s shows are fabricated publicity stunts,
> designed to keep his shows on the front pages, all coming from within
> his own organisation.

It's not a genre I've taken any interest in. But the point remains that he
is entitled to defend his reputation (such as it is)


Logician

6/5/2011 6:28:00 PM

0

On Jun 5, 5:22 pm, "Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote:
> Logician wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 11:29 am, "Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote:
> >> Logician wrote:
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1394402/Britai.......
>
> >>> The UK King of judging tried to get a twitter user jailed.
>
> >>> Who needs free speech?
>
> >> "Free speech" doesn't mean "The right to anonymously defame other
> >> people",
> >> and never has done.
>
> >> The Twatter accused Cowell of criminal dishonesty. Cowell has every right
> >> to challenge that, and defend his reputation.
>
> > Read the article. It says The Show invented the story to boost
> > figures, that means Cowell and his team invented the story and then
> > gave false information to the Police. That is very illegal.
>
> If* Cowell's people confected this allegation and then reported it to the
> Police for a stunt, they are at risk of criminal prosecution (quite
> rightly).    But that makes no difference to my point above - defaming
> someone via Twatter doesn't give you some magical immunity from the law.
>
> (* Any claim relying on the Daily Mail as source has to be taken with a
> lorryload of salt)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The point is that COWELL was the Twitter user!