Search Results

Search found 30620 results on 1225 pages for 'siebel crm 8 2 for public'.

Page 25/1225 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • La réponse d’Oracle aux nouveaux enjeux de la Grande Distribution Catégorie Apps

    - by Valérie De Montvallon
    Retrouvez l'interview de Franck Westrelin, Directeur Associé Oracle Retail, lors du Retail Business Technologie Forum du 20 novembre 2012 à Paris. Résumé de l'interview : Franck Westerlin discute des grandes tendances de la distribution : les changements du comportement client, l'étendu des outils d’achat et d’interactions clients, l'environnement concurrentiel et saturé… Il présente aussi les attentes des consommateurs actuels : une expérience d’achat de qualité, l'homogénéité et la cohérence par rapport aux points d’interactions avec les distributeurs. Enfin, il démontre comment Oracle répond à ces enjeux grâce à l'innovation : optimisation des interactions client et des processus métier (Gestion commerciale, eCommerce, planifications, CRM, back office magasin, supply chain…) Retrouvez l'interview sur notre Chaine Youtube Oracle Applications France ! 

    Read the article

  • Mega Trends 4 Financial Services, 21 maggio 2014

    - by Claudia Caramelli-Oracle
    Oracle ha sponsorizzato questo evento dedicato alle Banche e al mondo assicurativo. Il tema principale è stato cercare di capire come esplorare il futuro per migliorare il coinvolgimento dei clienti e le innovazioni in questo mercato. Oracle ha avuto l'opportunità di incontrare i Direttori Generali e i CxO delle più importanti banche italiane, internazionali e assicurazioni in oltre quattro momenti diversi: 1. Cena executive il 20 maggio2. Sessione plenaria3. Sessione parallela con il tema: Social & Digital Engaging4. CRM & Dig Data IntelligenceL'hashtag #mt4financialservices  ha visto un grosso movimento su Twitter: questo dimostra come le tematiche di cui si è discusso durante l'evento devono e trovano un reale riscontro in quello che è il mercato di riferimento. C'è interesse e soprattutto il mercato aspetta solo di essere ingaggiato in queste modalità! Per maggiori informazioni scrivi a Silvia Valgoi

    Read the article

  • Do You Want "Normal?" Good luck!

    - by steve.diamond
    Much has been written about "The New Normal." One thing is for sure: whatever THAT is, economically speaking we won't be experiencing it anytime soon. Sure, we're well beyond the "no floor" perception of 18 months ago--which is certainly comforting, but ask any senior executive and they'll tell you of the constant rigor necessary to continually adapt to an ever-changing macro environment. This brings me to a suggestion that you tune in to a Deloitte Webinar titled, "The New Normal: Embrace Complexity or Seek to Simplify." It features the perspectives on this very topic of Jessica Blume, a principal at Deloitte; and Kirk Mosher, VP of CRM Marketing at Oracle.

    Read the article

  • Company Administrators: Stay Alert!

    - by Pete
    Some of our customers choose to use the Themes feature to rebrand their Training and Support Center link, and redirect it to an internal support site. If your company does this, we strongly advise that for your employees that have the Administrator role, you maintain a separate theme that keeps the Administrator's Training and Support link pointed to the CRM On Demand Training and Support Center, and not redirect it to an internal support site. Why? The company administrator needs access to the Training and Support Center because it gives them pod-specific application alerts on the Support tab and pod-specific release information on the Release Info tab. If a customer no longer has access to the Training and Support Center URL because they have already rebranded that link, they can contact Customer Care to request it again.  

    Read the article

  • ADVISOR WEBCAST: R12: How to debug Email Center Auto Service Request Creation Failures

    - by user793044
    PRODUCT FAMILY: EBS CRM - Service November 6, 2012 at 11 am ET, 9 am MT, 8 am PT, 4 pm London The primary function of this WebCast is to explain how to debug problems when auto-creating a Service Request from an Inbound Email into Email Center. We see a significant number of issues raised with Support in this area, as the only indication the auto-creation has failed, is the Email routing to the Supervisor Queue for manual processing. Topics will include: Understand Email Center and Auto SR creation process.  Run the debug procedures. Understand the output and check the reasons for SR Creation failure. See the fixes for the most common issues faced. See the results for successful SR creation. Go to Doc ID 1493122.1 to register. Current Schedule and Archived Downloads can be found on Doc ID 740966.1.

    Read the article

  • Zip only public directory

    - by Nino55
    Hi guys, I've a lot of websites (100+ directories) I want to create a unique zip with only public subdirectory. My structure now is like: - Site 1 --- app --- tmp --- log --- public - Site 2 --- app --- tmp --- log --- public - ... 100+ dirs ... Now I need a unique zip and then after unzip it I want to see this structure: - Site 1 --- public - Site 2 --- public - others Any suggestion how I can do that with linux commands zip/tar ? Thanks so much!

    Read the article

  • "Has Oracle written the script for CRM success?" - Anthony Lye on Customer Experience at BAFTA

    - by Richard Lefebvre
    Anthony Lye showcased Oracle Fusion CRM at a BAFTA gathering, and MyCustomer.com covered the story under the title of "Has Oracle written the script for CRM success?' According to MyCustomer.com, "Oracle's SVP of CRM Anthony Lye set the scene for the event, suggesting products are becoming commoditized, so that the only way to differentiate is through the relationship with the customer. But he warned that "customers are more and more in control of that relationship, so you have to provide great experiences for them." "The quickest win within your organization to create a single view is to connect your marketing organization with your selling organization, align goals, processes, people and technology," Anthony explained.   "And this is a transition that is already happening - "VPs of marketing have started turning up in the same meetings as VPs of sales, we have started to see that they want to work together" - but this convergence needs nurturing." "In Fusion there are capabilities to align the organisation - we enable marketing on the same platform to build campaigns connected to sales stages. It can affect leads and opportunities at the top end of the funnel. And the selling organisation can take advantage of marketing content - the materials that are exclusively within marketing can now be used by sales. Your sales teams have been campaigning forever, but it's usually by email, it isn't aligned with the corporate message and it's being sent to people it shouldn't. By aligning them we can increase output and the quality of that output." Anthony concluded: "Operating in a disconnected fashion having two distinct systems will cost you time and money. So we feel there's a material advantage in a solution like this." Enjoy the full story at http://www.mycustomer.com/topic/marketing/has-oracle-written-script-crm-success/139958

    Read the article

  • Sugar CRM integration with Java - How to add relationship

    - by Arun P Johny
    Hi, I'm trying to integrate Sugar CRM with one of my projects. I'm using Apache Axis as my SOAP client. I've created the Sugar CRM client Stub classes using Apache Axis. I'm able to login and add Leads, Opportunities, Accounts and Contacts. But I'm unable to add a relation ship between my Account and Opportunity. I've found following method in the SugarsoapPortType port.set_relationship(session, module_name, module_id, link_field_name, related_ids, name_value_list, delete) but I cannot understand the different parameters required by this method. Most of the online documents suggests a simple way as given below $result = $client->call('set_relationship',array("session"=>$session _id,array("module1"=>"Emails","module1_id"=>"<module1_id>","module2"=>"Accounts","module2_id"=> "<module2_id>"))); how can I achieve this using Java Thanks

    Read the article

  • Create MVC 5 Combo Box from CRM Entities?

    - by SpaceCowboy74
    I am working on an MVC 5 App that pulls data from Dynamics CRM 5. The Data I am getting back is an IQueryable of type Account (The CRM Entity class auto generated by CrmSvcUtil). I am retrieving all of the items and can loop through them with code like this: @foreach (var item in Model.ToList()) { <tr> <td> @item.AccountId </td> <td> @Html.DisplayFor(modelItem => item.Name) </td> </tr> } The problem is, I would like to instead put them in a drop down list. I can't figure out what the syntax is to put these in a DropDown is. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Centos/OVH: public IP on KVM virtual machine

    - by Sébastien
    Since a few days, I'm trying to configure my KVM vm to have a public IP address, without any success. First, I'm on OVH, and you need to know they don't allow networking from different mac addresses. I have so registered a virtual mac address associated with my failover IP Here's my configuration: Guest wanted IP: 46.105.40.x Host IP: 176.31.240.x Host configuration dummy0 interface: ifcfg-dummy0 BOOTPROTO=static IPADDR=10.0.0.1 NETMASK=255.0.0.0 ONBOOT=yes NM_CONTROLLED=no ARP=yes BRIDGE=br0 br0 bridge: ifcfg-br0 DEVICE=br0 TYPE=Bridge DELAY=0 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=static IPADDR=192.168.1.1 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 PEERDNS=yes NM_CONTROLLED=no ARP=yes Failover ip is redirected to the br0 bridge with ip route add 46.105.40.xxx dev br0 > cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward 1 > cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/vnet0/proxy_arp 1 > route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 176.31.240.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 46.105.40.x 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 br0 176.31.240.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 br0 Guest configuration: KVM: <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='02:00:00:30:22:05'/> <source bridge='br0'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x06' function='0x0'/> </interface> I've borrowed most of the OVH configuration here (in french, http://guides.ovh.com/BridgeClient) for the guest configuration eth0 interface: ifcfg-eth0 DEVICE="eth0" BOOTPROTO=none HWADDR="02:00:00:30:22:05" NM_CONTROLLED="yes" ONBOOT="yes" TYPE="Ethernet" UUID="e9138469-0d81-4ee6-b5ab-de0d7d17d1c8" USERCTL=no PEERDNS=yes IPADDR=46.105.40.xxx NETMASK=255.255.255.255 GATEWAY=176.31.240.254 ARP=yes For the routes, I have in route-eth0: 176.31.240.254 dev eth0 default via 176.31.240.254 dev eth0 With this configuration, I don't have any access to the internet. The only thing I can do is to ping the public ip of the host, nothing more. My final conclusion is that the route does not work, because, when, on the guest, I run ping 8.8.8.8, I have, on the host: > tcpdump -i vnet0 icmp tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on br0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 13:38:09.009324 IP 46-105-40-xxx.kimsufi.com > google-public-dns-a.google.com: ICMP echo request, id 50183, seq 1, length 64 13:38:09.815344 IP 46-105-40-xxx.kimsufi.com > google-public-dns-a.google.com: ICMP echo request, id 50183, seq 2, length 64 I never get the ping reply, only the request. It seems Guest - Host communication is fine. On eth0: > tcpdump -i eth0 icmp tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 13:39:40.240561 IP 46-105-40-xxx.kimsufi.com > google-public-dns-a.google.com: ICMP echo request, id 50439, seq 1, length 64 13:39:40.250161 IP google-public-dns-a.google.com > 46-105-40-xxx.kimsufi.com: ICMP echo reply, id 50439, seq 1, length 64 I have the request and the reply on eth0, but reply is not forwarded to the bridge. I really don't understand why, I though it was the aim of the route to do that! IPtables is disabled on both host and guest. I really hope some of you will be able to help me! Many thanks in advance, Sébastien

    Read the article

  • How to Configure Source NAT (Private IP => Public IP Outbound)

    - by DavidScherer
    I'm running VMWare ESXi Free and have Zentyal SBS 3.2 running as a Gateway. I have 5 Public IPS (CIDR/29, let's call them 69.1.1.1 - 69.1.1.5) and currently Zentyal is bound to 69.1.1.1 as the Gateway, with the other 4 Public IPs set as Virtual Interfaces in Zentyal (wan2-wan5) I have machines sitting on the Private Network (10.34.251.x) that, when going Outbound (to Google for instance) should be seen by the Internet as an IP other than the Gateway (69.1.1.1), this is because our machines need to be able to communicate with 3rd party APIs that expect these requests to come from a specific IP. From what I could find, SNAT (Source NAT) in Zentyal is used to achieve this, but I'm not sure how to configure it and cannot find a specific piece of Documentation for it at Zentyal. I've tried setting this up a couple different ways, with no results and at this point I have no idea if I'm going about this completely wrong, or my lack of experience with networking and the associated terminology is preventing me from placing the correct values in the correct fields. I get the following form to set up "SNAT" rules in Zentyal: Perhaps someone can offer some guidance and definitions for the fields above? SNAT Address Is this the Public IP I want to masquerade? Outgoing Interface Should this by my External NIC (one connected to Public 'Net), or is it the "Private" interface? It sounds as though this should be the External interface as I want the traffic from the internal network sent Out over this Interface (using a different IP than normal, anyway) Source Is the the Source on the internal network (one of the private IPs?), a public IP I want to masquerade as, or something else entirely? Destination Is this a place on the Internet (eg, "Only do this for the Site Google.com"/IP) or am I allowing myself to become confused again? Service I'm assuming this allows me to restrict which services this rule will apply to, but is it for a service on the internal network or a service being accessed on the external network? If I can offer any further details or information to make what I'm trying to do more clear, I will happily do so. Honestly any kind of help here would be very appreciated. I'm not a NetOps or anything even close, I spend most of my day writing code and my entire "team" at this company consists of "me, myself, and I" so while I try to broaden my KB at every possible opportunity, I can only learn so much, so fast and I feel like with networking especially there's just so much, coupled with a learning curve for each solution that likes to (from my limited perspective) use slightly different terminology that what I'm used to (and I don't exactly have the necessary experience to cross reference this stuff with the stuff I already know in context).

    Read the article

  • DrayTek 2820 configuration using public IP addresses

    - by Kev
    I have a /29 range of public IP addresses assigned to me by my ISP. I'm trying to configure a SIP VOIP handset to register with my VOIP provider who recommend using public IP addresses rather than NAT. I have a DrayTek 2820 router flashed with the latest firmware and have configured my router as per DrayTek's FAQ at: How do I use a public subnet on the LAN (non-NAT operation ) ? My IP range is: xx.xx.94.16 -> xx.xx.94.23 This gives a usable range of: xx.xx.94.17 -> xx.xx.94.22 My router's public IP address is: xx.xx.94.17, the SIP VOIP handset is allocated xx.xx.94.18. I have a second internet connection and via that I can ping the handset. However for some reason I can't seem to get it to register with the provider. I tried adding a new Firewall filter to pass through from WAN to LAN: Source: ANY, Destination: xx.xx.94.18, UDP - Ports 1024 -> 65535 Out of interest I also tried opening port 80 to see if I could browse to the phone's admin web interface but no joy. I know that my ISP aren't blocking inbound service ports because I NAT Port Forwarded port 80 to one of my internal web servers and it rendered a test page I had set up. All the NAT settings are reset to factory defaults, i.e. there are no Port Redirection, DMZ Host, Open Ports or Address Mappings configured. The handset I'm using is a GrandStream GXP-2000. Is there anything else I should be doing?

    Read the article

  • Possible to IPSec VPN Tunnel Public IP Addresses?

    - by caleban
    A customer uses an IBM SAS product over the internet. Traffic flows from the IBM hosting data center to the customer network through Juniper VPN appliances. IBM says they're not tunneling private IP addresses. IBM says they're tunneling public IP addresses. Is this possible? What does this look like in the VPN configuration and in the packets? I'd like to know what the source/destination ip/ports would look like in the encrypted tunneled IPSec Payload and in the IP packet carrying the IPSec Payload. IPSec Payload: source:1.1.1.101:1001 destination:2.2.2.101:2001 IP Packet: source:1.1.1.1:101 destination:2.2.2.1:201 Is it possible to send public IP addresses through an IPSec VPN tunnel? Is it possible for IBM to send a print job from a server on their network using the static-nat public address over a VPN to a printer at a customer network using the printer's static-nat public address? Or can a VPN not do this? Can a VPN only work with interesting traffic from and to private IP addresses?

    Read the article

  • Private staff network within public network

    - by pianohacker
    I'm the sysadmin at a small public library. Since I got here a few years ago, I've been trying to set up the network in a secure and simple way. Security is a little tricky; the staff and patron networks need to be separated, for security reasons. Even if I further isolated the public wireless, I'd still rather not trust the security of our public computers. However, the two networks also need to communicate; even if I set up enough VMs so they didn't share any servers, they need to use the same two printers at the very least. Currently, I'm solving this with some jerry-rigged commodity equipment. The patron network, linked together by switches, has a Windows server connected to it for DNS and DHCP and a DSL modem for a gateway. Also on the patron network is the WAN side of a Linksys router. This router is the "top" of the staff network, and has the same Windows server connected on a different port, providing DNS and DHCP, and another, faster DSL modem (separate connections are very useful, especially as we heavily depend on some cloud-hosted software). tl;dr: We have a public network, and a NATed staff network within it. My question is; is this really the best way to do this? The right equipment would likely make my job easier, but anything with more than four ports and even rudimentary management quickly becomes a heavy hit on our budget. (My original question was about an ungodly frustrating DHCP routing issue, but I thought I'd ask whether my network was broken rather than asking about the DHCP problem and being told my network was broken.)

    Read the article

  • Possible to IPSec VPN Tunnel Public IP Addresses?

    - by caleban
    A customer uses an IBM SAS product over the internet. Traffic flows from the IBM hosting data center to the customer network through Juniper VPN appliances. IBM says they're not tunneling private IP addresses. IBM says they're tunneling public IP addresses. Is this possible? What does this look like in the VPN configuration and in the packets? I'd like to know what the source/destination ip/ports would look like in the encrypted tunneled IPSec Payload and in the IP packet carrying the IPSec Payload. IPSec Payload: source:1.1.1.101:1001 destination:2.2.2.101:2001 IP Packet: source:1.1.1.1:101 destination:2.2.2.1:201 Is it possible to send public IP addresses through an IPSec VPN tunnel? Is it possible for IBM to send a print job from a server on their network using the static-nat public address over a VPN to a printer at a customer network using the printer's static-nat public address? Or can a VPN not do this? Can a VPN only work with interesting traffic from and to private IP addresses?

    Read the article

  • AWS VPC public web application connecting to database via VPN

    - by Chris
    What I am trying to do is set up a web application that is public facing but makes calls to a database that is on an internal network. I have been trying to set up an AWS VPC with a public subnet, private subnet, and hardware VPN access but I can't seem to get it to work. Can someone help me understand what the process flow here should be? My understanding is that I need a public subnet to handle the website requests and then a private subnet to connect to the VPN but what I do not understand is how to send requests down the chain and get the response. Basically what I am asking is how can I query the database via VPN from that public website? I've tried during rout forwarding but I can't successfully complete the process. Does anyone have any advice on something I can read on this subject or an FAQ on setting something like this up? Is it even possible? I'm out of my league here, this is not my area of expertise but I'm being asked to solve this problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to use SSH Public Key with PuTTY to connect to a Linux machine

    - by ysap
    I am trying to set a public SSH key connection from a Windows 7 machine to a Red-Hat Linux machine. The ultimate purpose is to use pscp (PuTTY's version of scp) from the command terminal w/o the need to type password repetitively. Following PuTTY's documentation and other online sources, I used PuTTYgen to generate a key pair. I then copied the generated public key to a ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file on the Linux machine (as far as I can tell, it runs OpenSSH server). To check the connection, I run PuTTY and set the username and private key file in the appropriate places in its GUI. However, when trying to connect using PuTTY's SSH, the connection uses the preset username, but I get an error message of "Server refused our key" and a prompt for the password. I then tried to copy-paste the public key text from PuTTYgen's GUI to the authorized_keys file, but it did not work either. How should I set up a public key connection form Win 7 to Linux? How do I use this with pscp (rather than PuTTY's ssh)?

    Read the article

  • Proxmox: VMs and different public IPs

    - by Raj
    I have a server which has two NICs and both are directly connected to internet. I have five different public IP addresses available for the VMs. The host machine (Proxmox) doesn't need to use any (it'll use a private IP and that's all) but will have internet connection. I've gone through the Proxmox documentation and I'm not able to understand the big picture to set up the right network configuration for my needs. In short, what I have is: One server (Proxmox, host machine) On that server, 5 VMs are created 5 public IP addresses available (one for each VM), let's say: 80.123.21.1, 80.123.21.2, 80.123.21.3, 80.123.21.4, 80.123.21.5 What I have now for the host is the following: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet manual auto eth1 iface eth1 inet manual auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 192.168.1.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet manual It can be reached from the internal network, so that's OK. It has internet connection, which is also OK. vmbr1 is going to be used by the VMs. Each VM will have its own IP on his network interfaces configuration file. For some reason, VMs will not have internet and they won't be able to have public IP address. If I use NAT, it will work correctly, but they will not use the public allocated IP addresses for them. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Convert Public Folder to Shared Mailbox

    - by Lilienthal
    Due to a change in company policy, all existing Public Folders (PF) have to be phased out in favour of shared mailboxes. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have any procedures or guidelines for this migration and I can't find much online either. I've already migrated one of our public folders so far as a sort of test case. Because we still use Exchange 2003, we can't create real shared mailboxes as we would in 2007 or 2010 (With New-Mailbox -Shared ... in the Exchange Shell). Instead, I simply created a new account on the AD and assigned it a mailbox. I then set the PF's permissions to read-only to keep it in a consistent state and copied the entire folder to a local PST in Outlook 2010, from which the folder was in turn copied to the new mailbox. Permissions and Folder Visible were set for all users and the migration was successful. While this works, the whole procedure feels very hackish to me and not at all efficient. I'd welcome some input on automating or at least streamlining the process. Additionally, we are unsure of what to do with our mail-enabled Public Folders. Several of these are nested under other PFs, some of which are also mail-enabled. Preserving folder structure is a key requirement and this seems impossible at first glance. I've considered creating dummy accounts for all the email addresses from our mail-enabled PFs and then setting up automated rules to forward messages to a subfolder of the new shared mailboxes, but I am not familiar enough with Exchange to know if this is even possible. Further points of concern are the Calendars and Contact lists in our public folders. I suppose I'll be forced to create new mailboxes for every one of these we have as well, then set up share permissions for their Calendar and Contact items, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

    Read the article

  • CEN/CENELEC Lacks Perspective

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Over the last few months, two of the European Standardization Organizations (ESOs), CEN and CENELEC have circulated an unfortunate position statement distorting the facts around fora and consortia. For the benefit of outsiders to this debate, let's just say that this debate regards whether and how the EU should recognize standards and specifications from certain fora and consortia based on a process evaluating the openness and transparency of such deliverables. The topic is complex, and somewhat confusing even to insiders, but nevertheless crucial to the European economy. As far as I can judge, their positions are not based on facts. This is unfortunate. For the benefit of clarity, here are some of the observations they make: a)"Most consortia are in essence driven by technology companies making hardware and software solutions, by definition very few of the largest ones are European-based". b) "Most consortia lack a European presence, relevant Committees, even those that are often cited as having stronger links with Europe, seem to lack an overall, inclusive set of participants". c) "Recognising specific consortia specifications will not resolve any concrete problems of interoperability for public authorities; interoperability depends on stringing together a range of specifications (from formal global bodies or consortia alike)". d) "Consortia already have the option to have their specifications adopted by the international formal standards bodies and many more exercise this than the two that seem to be campaigning for European recognition. Such specifications can then also be adopted as European standards." e) "Consortium specifications completely lack any process to take due and balanced account of requirements at national level - this is not important for technologies but can be a critical issue when discussing cross-border issues within the EU such as eGovernment, eHealth and so on". f) "The proposed recognition will not lead to standstill on national or European activities, nor to the adoption of the specifications as national standards in the CEN and CENELEC members (usually in their official national languages), nor to withdrawal of conflicting national standards. A big asset of the European standardization system is its coherence and lack of fragmentation." g) "We always miss concrete and specific examples of where consortia referencing are supposed to be helpful." First of all, note that ETSI, the third ESO, did not join the position. The reason is, of course, that ETSI beyond being an ESO, also has a global perspective and, moreover, does consider reality. Secondly, having produced arguments a) to g), CEN/CENELEC has the audacity to call a meeting on Friday 25 February entitled "ICT standardization - improving collaboration in Europe". This sounds very nice, but they have not set the stage for constructive debate. Rather, they demonstrate a striking lack of vision and lack of perspective. I will back this up by three facts, and leave it there. 1. Since the 1980s, global industry fora and consortia, such as IETF, W3C and OASIS have emerged as world-leading ICT standards development organizations with excellent procedures for openness and transparency in all phases of standards development, ex post and ex ante. - Practically no ICT system can be built without using fora and consortia standards (FCS). - Without using FCS, neither the Internet, upon which the EU economy depends, nor EU institutions would operate. - FCS are of high relevance for achieving and promoting interoperability and driving innovation. 2. FCS are complementary to the formally recognized standards organizations including the ESOs. - No work will be taken away from the ESOs should the EU recognize certain FCS. - Each FCS would be evaluated on its merit and on the openness of the process that produced it. ESOs would, with other stakeholders, have a say. - ESOs could potentially educate and assist European stakeholders to engage more actively and constructively with FCS. - ETSI, also an ESO, seems to clearly recognize these facts. 3. Europe and its Member States have a strong voice in several of the most relevant global industry fora and consortia. - W3C: W3C was founded in 1994 by an Englishman, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, in collaboration with CERN, the European research lab. In April 1995, INRIA (Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique) in France became the first European W3C host and in 2003, ERCIM (European Research Consortium in Informatics and Mathematics), also based in France, took over the role of European W3C host from INRIA. Today, W3C has 326 Members, 40% of which are European. Government participation is also strong, and it could be increased - a development that is very much desired by W3C. Current members of the W3C Advisory Board includes Ora Lassila (Nokia) and Charles McCathie Nevile (Opera). Nokia is Finnish company, Opera is a Norwegian company. SAP's Claus von Riegen is an alumni of the same Advisory Board. - OASIS: its membership - 30% of which is European - represents the marketplace, reflecting a balance of providers, user companies, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. In particular, about 15% of OASIS members are governments or universities. Frederick Hirsch from Nokia, Claus von Riegen from SAP AG and Charles-H. Schulz from Ars Aperta are on the Board of Directors. Nokia is a Finnish company, SAP is a German company and Ars Aperta is a French company. The Chairman of the Board is Peter Brown, who is an Independent Consultant, an Austrian citizen AND an official of the European Parliament currently on long-term leave. - IETF: The oversight of its activities is by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), since 2007 chaired by Olaf Kolkman, a Dutch national who lives in Uithoorn, NL. Kolkman is director of NLnet Labs, a foundation chartered to develop open source software and open source standards for the Internet. Other IAB members include Marcelo Bagnulo whose affiliation is the University Carlos III of Madrid, Spain as well as Hannes Tschofenig from Nokia Siemens Networks. Nokia is a Finnish company. Siemens is a German company. Nokia Siemens is a European joint venture. - Member States: At least 17 European Member States have developed Interoperability Frameworks that include FCS, according to the EU-funded National Interoperability Framework Observatory (see list and NIFO web site on IDABC). This also means they actively procure solutions using FCS, reference FCS in their policies and even in laws. Member State reps are free to engage in FCS, and many do. It would be nice if the EU adjusted to this reality. - A huge number of European nationals work in the global IT industry, on European soil or elsewhere, whether in EU registered companies or not. CEN/CENELEC lacks perspective and has engaged in an effort to twist facts that is quite striking from a publicly funded organization. I wish them all possible success with Friday's meeting but I fear all of the most important stakeholders will not be at the table. Not because they do not wish to collaborate, but because they just have been insulted. If they do show up, it would be a gracious move, almost beyond comprehension. While I do not expect CEN/CENELEC to line up perfectly in favor of fora and consortia, I think it would be to their benefit to stick to more palatable observations. Actually, I would suggest an apology, straightening out the facts. This works among friends and it works in an organizational context. Then, we can all move on. Standardization is important. Too important to ignore. Too important to distort. The European economy depends on it. We need CEN/CENELEC. It is an important organization. But CEN/CENELEC needs fora and consortia, too.

    Read the article

  • Securing a Windows Server 2008 R2 Public Web Server

    - by Denny Ferrassoli
    I'm setting up a public web server: Windows Server 2008 R2, IIS7.5. Does anyone have a tutorial / walkthrough / tips on properly securing a public web server? I've seen a few tutorials but mostly focused on Windows Server 2003. What I've done so far: Created a specific user account for the website / app pool, Renamed Admin account, Installed FTPS, Configured firewall to block any non-public service (web / https), Configured firewall to allow access to management interfaces only from specific IP addresses (rdp, IIS management, ftp) Maybe a few other things but can't remember at the moment... ICMP is allowed... Should I disable all except ping? Port scan reveals only web and https ports. Any other suggestions? Thanks

    Read the article

  • IIS, Impersonation and COM Interop Premission Denied

    - by user315690
    Hello we are in the throws of integrating a Document Management System with Dynamic CRM 4, have done similar things previously but in this instance we are having to reference a COM dll. We've configured the asp.net page (we are bringing the info in via a i-Frame in CRM), setting Impersonation = True in the Webconfig and ensured that Windows authentication is the only method available within IIS. All works as we would expect when logged into the server itself and the page happily does off finds all the relevant documents for the CRM account and presents them to a user in a nice Infragistics CRM styled grid. However trying this from a client workstation we get the following: System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException (0xC0042335): Permission denied. Impersonation appears to be passing over the correct details but nothing we've tried thus far has been able to make this work outside of logging into the server. Any thoughts as to what we are missing?

    Read the article

  • Kerio group calendaring private/public functionality

    - by bsigrist
    We are considering a change of email servers and Kerio Connect is attractive. However, I am concerned about calendaring functionality. I found an old forum post that states the question well: "We want to create a single public calendar that everyone can see - using Windows XP/Outlook 2003/KOC 6.4.1. We want a way for people to put an entry in their own personal calendar and some how mark it so the entry auto add's or syncs with the public one. If an entry is private it wouldn't sync to the shared public calendar... Has anyone ever heard of a way to do this - in any way with any software?" This is a high priority feature, so if Kerio cannot do this, we may consider Exchange. Does Exchange provide functionality like that described?

    Read the article

  • Apache server in raspberry PI not visible from outside( public IP)

    - by Kronos
    I have made a fresh install of Arch Linux ARM into a Raspberry PI and I mounted there a LAMP, all fresh. I have another Arch(x86) in my laptop with Apache also there, and as far as I know, two web servers cannot run in the same network segment so, the problem is as follows. I my laptop, having Apache running, if I enter via the public ip of my network everything turns ok and I can see my website but, (obviously turning this server down) if I enter from the public IP with the Apache running in the raspberry pi( yes, only that Apache running) i cannot see my website in there. Also, if I access via local network it is a normal success, I can see my website. So, I can enter my raspberry website only via local but in my other web server i can enter it via local and public. I have the same conf files in both of them so what is the difference? I was planning in making the rpi as a development server. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Bitbucket - permission denied (public key)

    - by drupality
    I have repos in github and bitbucket. First I wanted to use same public key in bb and gh with no luck. So I created another public key, my .ssh/config file look like this: Host bb HostName bitbucket.org User somename PreferredAuthentications publickey IdentityFile C:/Documents and Settings/Marek/.ssh/bb Host github HostName github.com User somename PreferredAuthentications publickey IdentityFile C:/Documents and Settings/Marek/.ssh/id_rsa bb.pub is for bitbucket. I pasted key from this file to bitbucket. I still having Permission denied (public key) when I try to push my initial commit. Could somebody help?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >