ProFox

profox@leafe.com

2704 discussions

Re: [ADMIN] Moving leafe.com and dabodev.com servers
by Ken Dibble 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Well, thanks to all who replied to my post on Error 1569. When I actually receive those messages in my email client (as opposed to just viewing them in the archives), I'll respond more fully. Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org >So things might be a little flaky and perhaps unavailable over the >next few hours as the DNS changes percolate through the interwebs. >I'll be sending out emails once I seem to be out of the woods. > > >-- Ed Leafe > > > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/signed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > application/pgp-signature >--- > [excessive quoting removed by server]

1 0

Not getting any mail
by Ted Roche 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

I see the posts at the leafe.com archives, but haven't seen an email since Friday. I suspect this is a GMail filtering thing, but they're not showing up in the Spam folder as they usually do, and GMail doesn't have a very good whitelisting feature. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com

2 2

Re: [ADMIN] Moving leafe.com and dabodev.com servers
by Ken Dibble 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Anything working on this list yet? Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org >So things might be a little flaky and perhaps unavailable over the >next few hours as the DNS changes percolate through the interwebs. >I'll be sending out emails once I seem to be out of the woods. > > >-- Ed Leafe > > > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/signed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > application/pgp-signature >--- > [excessive quoting removed by server]

1 0

RE: [ADMIN] Moving leafe.com and dabodev.com servers
by Kurt Wendt 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

I suspect that since this is one of the very Last 2 e-mails I received from the forum on Friday - that maybe the Server Move didn't go so well. Anyway - was just curious... L8r, -K- -----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:30 AM To: profoxtech(a)leafe.com Subject: [ADMIN] Moving leafe.com and dabodev.com servers So things might be a little flaky and perhaps unavailable over the next few hours as the DNS changes percolate through the interwebs. I'll be sending out emails once I seem to be out of the woods. -- Ed Leafe --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/signed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pgp-signature --- [excessive quoting removed by server]

3 2

Testing
by Andy Davies 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

Test --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---

1 0

Re: Error 1569
by Charlie 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

On 1/8/2016 10:37 AM, Ken Dibble wrote: > Hi folks, > > I realize that at this stage of my career I should really understand > the simple stuff. Apparently there's something I don't understand though. It's not so much "understanding the simple stuff" as it is wading through the frequent (often useless) underlying OS differences and quirks from version to version. No one can understand it all. > For this scenario, please humor me by assuming that all of the > following is true (some of it is verified by my error logging system, > but the system does not explicitly test each of these assertions): ... > CLOSE TABLES ALL > CLOSE DATABASES ALL ... > IF NOT USED [appropriate alias, of which there can be only one for > this table] > USE [full correct path\some.dbf] IN 0 > ENDIF > > The USE line sometimes, but not very often, generates Error 1569 > ("Database [path\dbc file name]: File access denied"). I recommend opening the database (use the OPEN DATABASE command) before performing the USE statement. And, in fact, if you do you that do not need to path qualify the DBF (note: I always path qualify my OPEN DATABASE though <g>). -Charlie

1 0

Re: Error 1569
by Alan Bourke 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, at 03:37 PM, Ken Dibble wrote: > Again, assuming everything I've told you is true, what could be causing > this? The first avenue I would be going down is whether Samba is holding onto it somehow. -- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm

1 0

[NF] How to stop Windows getting all up in your face about upgrading.
by Alan Bourke 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Note section about corporate users. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/08/windows_10_upgrade_blocker/ "If you're using a PC running Windows 7 or 8, you may be getting a little sick of endless popup screens[1]telling you to upgrade to version 10. And you may be worried about inadvertently installing the upgrade as part of a security update. Microsoft will start pushing out a Windows 10 upgrade as a recommended, virtually mandatory, update very soon (it's right now[2] only an optional download). Some people are tempted to turn off Windows Update completely to avoid getting the new operating system – don't. It'll leave your computer vulnerable to attack as you'll no longer get security patches. It's actually rather easy to turn off the Windows 10 upgrade function without losing vital regular software updates. Microsoft even has an official document[3] explaining how to do it. A Redmond spokesperson today confirmed that support page is still valid – its instructions still work even though it was quietly published a few months ago. It involves digging into the Registry to disable the Windows 10 upgrade path, but it's not impossible nor particularly scary for a *Register* reader. Make sure you follow all the steps, but essentially you have to: 1. Open the Registry Editor (search for regedit in the Start Menu and run it). 2. Set DisableOSUpgrade to 1 in HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate 3. Set ReservationsAllowed to inHKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre- ntVersion\WindowsUpdate\OSUpgrade *_For corporate users, there's nothing to worry about – the Win10 upgrade is going to be blocked for users of Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 Enterprise editions, and for any build joined to a domain or relying on Microsoft Device Manager. Redmond isn't dumb; if the entire office suddenly tried to download and install that much data, the screams would be heard all the way to Seattle._* If you want to set up a policy not to download the update, Microsoft has made software updates available for download that will do this automatically for Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 that are here[4], and for Windows 8 and above, as well as Server 2012 R2 here[5]." -- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm Links: 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/15/microsoft_sneaky_about_pushing_wind… 2. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/30/windows_10_updates/ 3. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 4. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3065987 5. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3065988 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---

1 0

Re: email from vfp
by Alan Bourke 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, at 09:21 PM, Tracy Pearson wrote: > > > TLS is getting to be the preferred method. > Very true. -- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm

1 0

Error 1569
by Dave Crozier 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Ken, Just a WAG but check you have TableValidate set to as VFP may well be trying to test the integrity of the table each time you open it and to do this it needs exclusive access. 0: Do not perform table validation. 1: Validate record count when opening a table. 2: Validate record count when appending or inserting records and writing them to disk. 3: Check .dbf header before saving append operation to disk and modifying header. Default setting is 3 from VFP 8 onwards. Dave -----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ken Dibble Sent: 08 January 2016 15:37 To: profox(a)leafe.com Subject: Error 1569 Hi folks, I realize that at this stage of my career I should really understand the simple stuff. Apparently there's something I don't understand though. For this scenario, please humor me by assuming that all of the following is true (some of it is verified by my error logging system, but the system does not explicitly test each of these assertions): I have a bunch of VFP tables on a Linux file server. In the same location is a .dbc file for these tables that is not corrupted. The connection between the workstation and the server is working. I do not use private data sessions; all environmental settings are therefore global. SET MULTILOCKS is ON SET EXCLUSIVE is OFF This is a multi-user application. The database was explicitly opened: OPEN DATABASE [path\dbc file] SHARED Many things were done. Much later, we ensured that all users but this one were logged out, and created a semaphore file on the server that will prevent any users from logging back in. We are now in a single-user situation. So we issue: CLOSE TABLES ALL CLOSE DATABASES ALL The database is definitely closed at this point. However, issuing a correctly-formatted USE command on a table in that database is supposed to explicitly open the database again. Next, the code issues: IF NOT USED [appropriate alias, of which there can be only one for this table] USE [full correct path\some.dbf] IN 0 ENDIF The USE line sometimes, but not very often, generates Error 1569 ("Database [path\dbc file name]: File access denied"). According to MSDN, I have "attempted to write to a write-protected database container (.dbc) file." Again, assuming everything I've told you is true, what could be causing this? Thanks. Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org [excessive quoting removed by server]

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

ProFox