Search Results

Search found 682 results on 28 pages for 'ownership'.

Page 6/28 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Managing Linux Directory Permissions & SFTP

    - by Dizzle
    Good morning; I have a RHEL 5.7 web server configured to allow SSH/SFTP only by specific groups. I'd like for content managers to upload content to their respective directories and have that content inherit the user/group ownership of the directory regardless of upload method or application. For example: John is in group "web" for SSH/SFTP rights and "finance" for directory permissions, and uploads to directory "webstuff" via SFTP. Directory "webstuff" has permissions of "2760" (rwxrws---), and ownership of "apache:finance". If John uploads an update to an existing file in "webstuff", the ownership of the file stays at "apache:finance". If John uploads a new file to "webstuff", the ownership of the file is "john:finance". My desire is to have any file from John uploaded to "webstuff" to change to the directory's owner. I've tried with setuid and setgid both set, but the user-ownership didn't take. I've seen mentions on ServerFault of using ACL's, or a chrooted jail for SFTP but I have yet to configure and test them, and I don't know if they're a viable solution (they could be, I just don't know because I've never done either). Any thoughts and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Creating floppy drive special devices under Quantal

    - by JCCyC
    First, I'd like for the various special devices for different floppy capacities (like /dev/fd0u720 etc.) to be available. I tried to adapt some udev rules I found online. I tried this, which I saved as /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-floppy.rules: # change floppy device ownership and permissions # default permissions are 640, which prevents group users from having write access # first fix primary devices (/dev/fd0, /dev/fd1, etc.) # also change group ownership from disk to floppy SUBSYSTEM=="block", KERNEL=="fd[0-9]*", GROUP="floppy", MODE="0660" # next recreate secondary devices (/dev/fd0u720, /dev/fd0u1440, etc.) SUBSYSTEM=="block", KERNEL=="fd[0-9]*", ACTION=="add", RUN+="create_floppy_devices -c -t $attr{cmos} -m %M -M 0660 -G floppy $root/%k" But to no avail. It seems the create_floppy_devices script isn't provided with 12.10. How do I obtain it? Second: I'm using MATE, and whenever I log in I get a message box saying it tried to mount the drive but failed. How do I disable this? Third (which is probably related to the second): Whenever there's a disk in the drive, the motor won't stop spinning. If I do a mdir of it, after it returns, the motor stops, and then starts again. I suspect there's some process in MATE doing this. UPDATE: For CentOS 6 (who does have a create_floppy_devices program) the following rules file worked. Saved as /etc/udev/rules.d/98-floppy.rules: # change floppy device ownership and permissions # default permissions are 640, which prevents group users from having write access # first fix primary devices (/dev/fd0, /dev/fd1, etc.) # also change group ownership from disk to floppy KERNEL=="fd[0-9]*", GROUP="floppy", MODE="0660" # next recreate secondary devices (/dev/fd0u720, /dev/fd0u1440, etc.) # drive A: is type 4 (1.44MB) - add other lines for other drives KERNEL=="fd0*", ACTION=="add", RUN+="/lib/udev/create_floppy_devices -c -t 4 -m %M -M 0660 -G floppy $root/%k"

    Read the article

  • Changing permissions on serial port

    - by Terrik
    I'm using the Arduino IDE in Ubuntu, and am having issues with the serial port. It has worked in the past, but for reasons that may be unnecesary, I felt the need to change the ownership of some of the files from root ownership to my users ownership. This made the IDE work correctly, but I lost the ability to use the correct serial port. In the dev folder, the port I need is listed as permission 166. Someone (who is no longer in the area to help me) swapped the permissions to 666, which made it all work gloriously. However, it reverted back as soon as I restarted my computer, and if I now try to use the command: sudo chmod 666 ttyACM0 nothing happens. No error messages, but no permission change either. How can I change it, and how can I get it to change permanently. I apologize if this question is overly simplistic or unclear, I'm an ubuntu noob, and I wouldn't begrudge feedback!

    Read the article

  • Operation not permitted for chown : For a domain user directory

    - by Lunar Mushrooms
    I am trying to change ownership of a domain user home directory, which is mounted over nfs. Current user/group for that folder is nobody/nogroup. The following chown command is issued from "root" user shell. But I am getting permission error. How to resolve this ? sudo chown -Rv VANILLA\\userone:VANILLA\\domain^users /lhome/VANILLA/userone chown: changing ownership of `/lhome/VANILLA/userone': Operation not permitted failed to change ownership of `/lhome/VANILLA/userone' from nobody:nogroup to VANILLA\userone:VANILLA\domain^users My OS is Ubuntu LTS 12.04 32 bit.

    Read the article

  • cannot unlock login screen 14.04

    - by LittleNooby
    When my computer boots, entering the correct password won't start my session. I found out the problem is /home/user/.Xauthority ownership. root owns this folder and giving the ownership to the user will solve the problem... for a while. I don't know how or when, but the ownership will go back to root pretty often; It can happen just after one boot or ten. Is there a definitive solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Who should ‘own’ the Enterprise Architecture?

    - by Michael Glas
    I recently had a discussion around who should own an organization’s Enterprise Architecture. It was spawned by an article titled “Busting CIO Myths” in CIO magazine1 where the author interviewed Jeanne Ross, director of MIT's Center for Information Systems Research and co-author of books on enterprise architecture, governance and IT value.In the article Jeanne states that companies need to acknowledge that "architecture says everything about how the company is going to function, operate, and grow; the only person who can own that is the CEO". "If the CEO doesn't accept that role, there really can be no architecture."The first question that came up when talking about ownership was whether you are talking about a person, role, or organization (there are pros and cons to each, but in general, I like to assign accountability to as few people as possible). After much thought and discussion, I came to the conclusion that we were answering the wrong question. Instead of talking about ownership we were talking about responsibility and accountability, and the answer varies depending on the particular role of the organization’s Enterprise Architecture and the activities of the enterprise architect(s).Instead of looking at just who owns the architecture, think about what the person/role/organization should do. This is one possible scenario (thanks to Bob Covington): The CEO should own the Enterprise Strategy which guides the business architecture. The Business units should own the business processes and information which guide the business, application and information architectures. The CIO should own the technology, IT Governance and the management of the application and information architectures/implementations. The EA Governance Team owns the EA process.  If EA is done well, the governance team consists of both IT and the business. While there are many more roles and responsibilities than listed here, it starts to provide a clearer understanding of ‘ownership’. Now back to Jeanne’s statement that the CEO should own the architecture. If you agree with the statement about what the architecture is (and I do agree), then ultimately the CEO does need to own it. However, what we ended up with was not really ownership, but more statements around roles and responsibilities tied to aspects of the enterprise architecture. You can debate the semantics of ownership vs. responsibility and accountability, but in the end the important thing is to come to a clearer understanding that is easily communicated (and hopefully measured) around the question “Who owns the Enterprise Architecture”.The next logical step . . . create a RACI matrix that details the findings . . . but that is a step that each organization needs to do on their own as it will vary based on current EA maturity, company culture, and a variety of other factors. Who ‘owns’ the Enterprise Architecture in your organization? 1 CIO Magazine Article (Busting CIO Myths): http://www.cio.com/article/704943/Busting_CIO_Myths Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

    Read the article

  • Using transactions with ADO.NET Data Adapters.

    - by Ergwun
    Scenario: I want to let multiple (2 to 20, probably) server applications use a single database using ADO.NET. I want individual applications to be able to take ownership of sets of records in the database, hold them in memory (for speed) in DataSets, respond to client requests on the data, perform updates, and prevent other applications from updating those records until ownership has been relinquished. I'm new to ADO.NET, but it seems like this should be possible using transactions with Data Adapters (ADO.NET disconnected layer). Question part 1: Is that the right way to try and do this? Question part 2: If that is the right way, can anyone point me at any tutorials or examples of this kind of approach (in C#)? Question part 3: If I want to be able to take ownership of individual records and release them independently, am I going to need a separate transaction for each record, and by extension a separate DataAdapter and DataSet to hold each record, or is there a better way to do that? Each application will likely hold ownership of thousands of records simultaneously.

    Read the article

  • 13.04 Ringtail USB installation overwrote my username

    - by barnhillec
    I had to use an .iso USB to upgrade from 12.10 to 13.04 Ringtail. Great results, except the USB stick install app asked me to provide an identity so I provided the same one I used for 12.10 . Unfortunately it overwrote my other identity with a fresh one, so now I have no ownership of all my previous profiles, etc. A dumb mistake, but is there a way to take ownership of my previous user identity and merge it with the current?

    Read the article

  • A tale of two user ids: Why does NFS not recognize a new user id?

    - by user76177
    I have two servers running RHEL6. The main server, which I will refer to as server, is a database server. The application server, which I will refer to as client, mounts a directory from server via NFS. There is a user, appuser, on both client and server. However, appuser's id on client is 502. appuser's id on server is 506. Both users need read and write capability on the NFS share. To facilitate this, I made the share owned by appuser on server. Of course, client does not recognize that ownership, since appuser has a different id on client. So I did the following: Changed id of user in /etc/passwd on client to be 506 **Changed ownership of appuser's $HOME on client to be appuser again so that I could log in. Now, when I go to look at the NFS share from the client side, I see that it is owned by 502. 502 is the OLD id for appuser on client. I can't change ownership of the NFS share from client, since that is a volume that physically resides on server. I need to make sure that the NFS share shows ownership of appuser from both server and client. What step have I missed since changing the appuser id on client? NOTE: I have not rebooted client or done anything else yet.

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't NFS recognize a new UID?

    - by user76177
    I have two servers running RHEL6. I have root access to both. The main server, which I will refer to as server, is a database server. The application server, which I will refer to as client, mounts a directory from server via NFS. There is a user, appuser, on both client and server. However, appuser's UID on client is 502. appuser's UID on server is 506. Both users need read and write capability on the NFS share. To facilitate this, I made the share owned by appuser on server. Running id appuser on each yields: uid=506(appuser). Of course, client does not recognize that ownership, since appuser has a different id on client. So I did the following: Changed UID of user in /etc/passwd on client to be 506. Changed ownership of appuser's $HOME on client to be appuser again so that I could log in. Now, when I go to look at the NFS share from the client side, I see that it is owned by 502. 502 is the OLD id for appuser on client. I can't change ownership of the NFS share from client, since that is a volume that physically resides on server. I need to make sure that the NFS share shows ownership of appuser from both server and client. What step have I missed since changing the appuser id on client? NOTE: I have not rebooted client (or anything else.)

    Read the article

  • Financial Management: Why Move to the Cloud?

    - by Kathryn Perry
    A guest post by Terrance Wampler, Vice President, Financials Product Strategy, Oracle I’ve spent my career designing and developing financial management systems, most of it at Oracle. Every single day I either meet with our customers or talk to them on the phone. The time is usually spent discussing various business challenges facing CFOs and Controllers, who are running Oracle’s Financials. Lately, we’ve been talking a lot about cloud computing and whether it makes sense for finance to go to the cloud. Here are some pros and cons that might help you make that decision. Let’s start with the benefits of cloud solutions. The first is savings. With cloud services, you pay only for those commodities that you use. That makes you feel like you're getting better value for your money. Plus, you can preserve your cash for your core business and you can get a better matching of expenses and revenues. So, at the top of the list is lower total cost of ownership. The second point has to do with optimization. With cloud services, you’ll need less IT infrastructure so you can optimize your IT resources for better-value, higher-end projects. This also leads to greater financial visibility, where there's a clear cost for the set of services or features replaced by cloud services. And, the last benefit is what I call acceleration. You can save money by speeding up the initialization and deployment of the project. You don't have to deal with IT infrastructure and you can start implementing right away. We did a quick survey of about 70 CFOs at the CFO Summit last month in New York City. We asked them why they were looking at cloud services, and not necessarily just for financials. The No. 1 response was perceived lower cost of ownership. But of course there are risks to consider. The first thing most people think about in the cloud is security and ownership of data. So, will your data really be safe? Can you meet your own privacy policy requirements? Do you really want your private financial data exposed? Do you trust the provider? Is what you see really your data? Do you own it or is it managed by someone else? Security is a big concern that comes with an emotional component. The next thing in the risk category is reliability. Is the provider proven? You’re taking what you have control over – for example, standards and policies and internal service level agreements – away from your IT department and giving it to someone else. Will you still be able to adapt to shifts in your business? Will the provider be able to grow with your business effectively? Reliability means having a provider that can give you the service infrastructure that you need. And then there’s performance, which has two components in terms of risk. Going forward, will the provider be able to scale the infrastructure or service level if you have new employees or new businesses? And second, will the price you negotiate and the rate you lock in cover additional costs and rising service fees? Another piece is cost. What happens if you don't get the service level you want? What if you end the service? What happens, if after a few years, you send the service out for bid and change service? Can you move your data? Can you move the applications? Do the integrations work? These are cost components people don’t always take into account. And, the final piece is the business case. The perception is that you can get started really quickly with cloud. It has a perceived lower cost of total ownership and it feels cool because it's cloud. But do you have a good business case for moving to the cloud? Your total cost of ownership is over three years; then you’ll renew it, so your TCO is six years. Have you compared that to other internal services that you’re offering? You might already have product that you can run this new business or division on. In that same survey at the CFO Summit, the execs thought the biggest perceived risks were security of data, ability to move data back, and the ability to create a business case to actually justify the risks. So that’s the list of pros and cons. Not to leave you hanging, I will do another post on how to balance these pros and cons and make the right decision for your business.

    Read the article

  • Administrator not an Administrator?

    - by Sonny Ordell
    I have copied some files from an XP computer to a PC running Windows 7. I am logged on as a user who is marked as an Administrator. When I try to access the directory, I am told I don't have permission. Understandable, but what is odd is that I as an administrator don't have access to take ownership of the files. I don't have permission to add users in the ACL or to take ownership, indeed such options are greyed out. Why as an administrator user can I not take ownership of files?

    Read the article

  • PeopleSoft CRM 9.2 Release Value Proposition

    - by Race Bannon
    Oracle's PeopleSoft Customer Relationship Management (CRM) delivers solutions that have been tailored to fit your industry business processes, your customer strategies, and your success criteria. With PeopleSoft CRM 9.2, organizations will be able to deploy a solution that delivers built-in best practices specific to your industry with a highly configurable, tightly integrated platform, ensuring that solutions will be fast to implement. The result is less configuration, less customization, and less integration. PeopleSoft Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a world-class solution for organizations of every size and Oracle’s planned product roadmap for PeopleSoft applications is to deliver valuable, needed features for all of an organization’s constituents along three design principles — Simplicity, Productivity, and Lowered Total Cost of Ownership — as well as new application functionality as prioritized by our customers. The upcoming 9.2 release of PeopleSoft Customer Relationship Management focuses on these themes of Simplicity, Productivity, and Lower Total Cost of Ownership while also delivering robust new functionality to help your organization succeed. The recently published PeopleSoft CRM 9.2 Release Value Proposition provides overviews of the new features and enhancements planned for these applications for Release 9.2. This document offers customers a road map intended to help them assess the business benefits of upgrading to the 9.2 release while also helping them plan their IT projects and investments. (Link is to a My Oracle Support page, available to customers and partners.) Oracle continues to deliver enterprise-wide features that enhance our customer ownership experience and helps them run their businesses more efficiently and profitably. With the CRM 9.2 release, we continue to abide by this firm commitment we’ve made to our customers.

    Read the article

  • The Minimalist Approach to Content Governance - Request Phase

    - by Kellsey Ruppel
    Originally posted by John Brunswick. For each project, regardless of size, it is critical to understand the required ownership, business purpose, prerequisite education / resources needed to execute and success criteria around it. Without doing this, there is no way to get a handle on the content life-cyle, resulting in a mass of orphaned material. This lowers the quality of end user experiences.     The good news is that by using a simple process in this request phase - we will not have to revisit this phase unless something drastic changes in the project. For each of the elements mentioned above in this stage, the why, how (technically focused) and impact are outlined with the intent of providing the most value to a small team. 1. Ownership Why - Without ownership information it will not be possible to track and manage any of the content and take advantage of many features of enterprise content management technology. To hedge against this, we need to ensure that both a individual and their group or department within the organization are associated with the content. How - Apply metadata that indicates the owner and department or group that has responsibility for the content. Impact - It is possible to keep the content system optimized by running native reports against the meta-data and acting on them based on what has been outlined for success criteria. This will maximize end user experience, as content will be faster to locate and more relevant to the user by virtue of working through a smaller collection. 2. Business Purpose Why - This simple step will weed out requests that have tepid justification, as users will most likely not spend the effort to request resources if they do not have a real need. How - Use a simple online form to collect and workflow the request to management native to the content system. Impact - Minimizes the amount user generated content that is of low value to the organization. 3. Prerequisite Education Resources Needed Why - If a project cannot be properly staffed the probability of its success is going to be low. By outlining the resources needed - in both skill set and duration - it will cause the requesting party to think critically about the commitment needed to complete their project and what gap must be closed with regard to education of those resources. How - In the simple request form outlined above, resources and a commitment to fulfilling any needed education should be included with a brief acceptance clause that outlines the requesting party's commitment. Impact - This stage acts as a formal commitment to ensuring that resources are able to execute on the vision for the project. 4. Success Criteria Why - Similar to the business purpose, this is a key element in helping to determine if the project and its respective content should continue to exist if it does not meet its intended goal. How - Set a review point for the project content that will check the progress against the originally outlined success criteria and then determine the fate of the content. This can even include logic that will tell the content system to remove items that have not been opened by any users in X amount of time. Impact - This ensures that projects and their contents do not live past their useful lifespans. Just as with orphaned content, non-relevant information will slow user's access to relevant materials for the jobs. Request Phase Summary With a simple form that outlines the ownership of a project and its content, business purpose, education and resources, along with success criteria, we can ensure that an enterprise content management system will stay clean and relevant to end users - allowing it to deliver the most value possible. The key here is to make it straightforward to make the request and let the content management technology manage as much as possible through metadata, retention policies and workflow. Doing these basic steps will allow project content to get off to a great start in the enterprise! Stay tuned for the next installment - the "Create Phase" - covering security access and workflow involved in content creation, enabling a practical layer of governance over our enterprise content repository.

    Read the article

  • capistrano deployment with use_sudo=true - permissions problem

    - by Pavel K.
    i am trying to do a deployment with capistrano to newly installed Ubuntu server i am deploying to directory /var/www, owned by root, so i need to set use_sudo to true while i execute commands with run "#{try_sudo} command" without problem, svn checkout doesn't work with sudo prefix i try set :deploy_via, :export and it throws Can't make directory '/var/www/pr_name/releases/20091217171253': Permission denied during checkout i imagine adding "try_sudo" prefix to "svn export" would help, but where can i edit the one it uses in deploy_via? -- if on other hand i don't use use_sudo, and set /var/www/ directory ownership to myuser, i still cannot deploy - some of my deployment commands set folders ownership to apache user www-data and then i get something like: changing ownership of `/var/www/pr_name/current/specificdirectory': Operation not permitted which, if i understand correctly, has to be done with sudo

    Read the article

  • Fundtech’s Global PAYplus Achieves Oracle Exadata and Oracle Exalogic Optimized Status

    - by Javier Puerta
    Fundtech, a leader in global transaction banking solutions, has announced  that Global PAYplus® – Services Platform (GPP-SP) version 4 has achieved Oracle Exadata Optimized and Oracle Exalogic Optimized status. (Read full announcement here) "GPP-SP testing was done in the third quarter of 2012 in the Oracle Exastack Lab located in the Oracle Solution Center in Linlithgow, Scotland. It showed that an integrated solution can result in a highly streamlined installation, enabling reduced cost of evaluation, acquisition and ownership. Highlights of the transaction processing test are as follows: 9.3 million Mass Payments per hour 5.7 million Single Payments per hour The test found that the optimized combination of GPP-SP running on Oracle Exadata Database Machine and Oracle Exalogic Elastic Cloud is able to increase transactions per second (TPS) output per core, and able to reduce total cost of ownership (TCO). The volumes achieved were using only 25% of Exadata/Exalogic processing capacity".

    Read the article

  • Closing the gap between strategy and execution with Oracle Business Intelligence 11g

    - by manan.goel(at)oracle.com
    Wikipedia defines strategy as a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. An example of this is General Electric's acquisitions and divestiture strategy (plan) designed to propel GE to number 1 or 2 place (goal) in every business segment that it operated in. Execution on the other hand can be defined as the actions taken to getting things done. In GE's case execution will be steps followed for mergers/acquisitions or divestiture. Business press has written extensively about the importance of both strategy and execution in achieving desired business objectives. Perhaps the quote from Thomas Edison says it best - "vision without execution is hallucination". Conversely, it can be said that "execution without vision" is well may be "wishful thinking". Research overwhelmingly point towards the wide gap between strategy and execution. According to a published study, 49% of surveyed executives perceive a gap between their organizations' ability to develop and communicate sound strategies and their ability to implement those strategies. Further, of these respondents, 64% don't have full confidence that their companies will be able to close the gap. Having established the severity and importance of the problem let's talk about the reasons for the strategy-execution gap. The common reasons include: -        Lack of clearly defined goals -        Lack of consistent measure of success -        Lack of ownership -        Lack of alignment -        Lack of communication -        Lack of proper execution -        Lack of monitoring       There are multiple approaches to solving the problem including organizational development practices, technology enablement etc. In most cases a combination of approaches is required to achieve the desired result. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll focus on technology.  Imagine an integrated closed loop technology platform that automates the entire management cycle from defining strategy to assigning ownership to communicating goals to achieving alignment to collaboration to taking actions to monitoring progress and achieving mid course corrections. Besides, for best ROI and lowest TCO such a system should also have characteristics like:  Complete -        Full functionality -        Rich end user access Open -        Any data source -        Any business application -        Any technology stack  Integrated -        Common metadata -        Common security -        Common system management From a capabilities perspective the system should provide the following capabilities: Define -        Strategy -        Objectives -        Ownership -        KPI's Communicate -        Pervasive -        Collaborative -        Role based -        Secure Execute -        Integrated -        Intuitive -        Secure -        Ubiquitous Monitor -        Multiple styles and formats -        Exception based -        Push & Pull Having talked about the business problem and outlined the blueprint for a technology solution, let's talk about how Oracle Business Intelligence 11g can help. Oracle Business Intelligence is a comprehensive business intelligence solution for reporting, ad hoc query and analysis, OLAP, dashboards and scorecards. Oracle's best in class BI platform is based on an architecturally integrated technology foundation that provides a unified end user experience and features a Common Enterprise Information Model, with common security, query request generation and optimization, and system management. The BI platform is ·         Complete - meaning it delivers all modes and styles of BI including reporting, ad hoc query and analysis, OLAP, dashboards and scorecards with a rich end user experience that includes visualization, collaboration, alerts and notifications, search and mobile access. ·         Open - meaning the BI platform integrates with any data source, ETL tool, business application, application server, security infrastructure, portal technology as well as any ODBC compliant third party analytical tool. The suite accesses data from multiple heterogeneous sources--including popular relational and multidimensional data sources and major ERP and CRM applications from Oracle and SAP. ·         Integrated - meaning the BI platform is based on an architecturally integrated technology foundation built on an open, standards based service oriented architecture.  The platform features a common enterprise information model, common security model and a common configuration, deployment and systems management framework. To summarize, Oracle Business Intelligence is a comprehensive, integrated BI platform that lets you define strategy, identify objectives, assign ownership, define KPI's, collaborate, take action, monitor, report and do course corrections all form a single interface and a single system. The platform's integrated metadata model and task based design ensures that the entire workflow from defining strategy to execution to monitoring is completely integrated delivering end to end visibility, transparency and agility. Click here to learn more about Oracle BI 11g. 

    Read the article

  • Setting up fastcgi on an Ubunutu server (socket file permissions issue)

    - by gray alien
    I am trying to set up mod_fcgid on my server. Part of the requirement is that Apache needs to create a socket file for mod_fcgid. I specified the folder for Apache to write the socket data to: /var/run/apache2/fcgid I then specified this file in my fcgid.conf file as follows: SocketPath /var/run/apache2/fcgid/sock I then changed the owner of the folder to www-data (the apache user) and gave the owner full permissions to the folder and its contents. I was able to run my test fcgi app then. When I rebooted the machine, y fastcgi app no longer worked. After some investigation, I found that ownership of /var/run/apache2/fcgid has been reset to root, and with permission reset to 700 I have the following questions: Is there something specific about the /var/run folder? why is the permissions being reset after a reboot? Should I move my socket file to another location (in case root automatically takes ownership of contents in this folder for security reasons?) I am running Ubuntu 10.0.4 LTS 64 bit

    Read the article

  • Announcing StorageTek VSM 6

    - by uwes
    On 23rd of October Oracle announced the 6th generation StorageTek Virtual Storage Manager system (StorageTek VSM 6). StorageTek VSM 6 provides customers simple, flexible and mainframe class reliability all while reducing a customer’s total cost of ownership: Simple – Efficiently manages data and storage resources according to customer-defined rules, while streamlining overall tape operations Flexible – Engineered with flexibility in mind, can be deployed to meet each enterprise’s unique business requirements  Reliable – Reduces a customer’s exposure by providing superior data protection, end-to-end high availability architecture and closed loop data integrity checking Low Total Cost of Ownership and Investment Protection – Low asset acquisition cost, high-density data center footprint and physical tape energy efficiency keeps customers storage spending within budget For More Information Go To: Oracle.com Tape PageOracle Technology Network Tape Page

    Read the article

  • MVC model flow?

    - by fuzzygoat
    I am setting up an application using the MVC model and I have a query regrading the flow of information from the UI to the data model. What I need to do is place data from the UI in the model, what I have done is write a method in the view which collects the required data in an object and then passes it to the model. The model then takes ownership of the data so that the view can release its ownership. Does this sound sensible?

    Read the article

  • Who owns the IP rights of the software without written employment contract? Employer or employee? [closed]

    - by P T
    I am a software engineer who got an idea, and developed alone an integrated ERP software solution over the past 2 years. I got the idea and coded much of the software in my personal time, utilizing my own resources, but also as intern/employee at small wholesale retailer (company A). I had a verbal agreement with the company that I could keep the IP rights to the code and the company would have the "shop rights" to use "a copy" of the software without restrictions. Part of this agreement was that I was heavily underpaid to keep the rights. Recently things started to take a down turn in the company A as the company grew fairly large and new head management was formed, also new partners were brought in. The original owners distanced themselves from the business, and the new "greedy" group indicated that they want to claim the IP rights to my software, offering me a contract that would split the IP ownership into 50% co-ownership, completely disregarding the initial verbal agreements. As of now there was no single written job description and agreement/contract/policy that I signed with the company A, I signed only I-9 and W-4 forms. I now have an opportunity to leave the company A and form a new business with 2 partners (Company B), obviously using the software as the primary tool. There would be no direct conflict of interest as the company A sells wholesale goods. My core question is: "Who owns the code without contract? Me or the company A? (in FL, US)" Detailed questions: I am familiar with the "shop rights", I don't have any problem leaving a copy of the code in the company for them to use/enhance to run their wholesale business. What worries me, Can the company A make any legal claims to the software/code/IP and potential derived profits/interests after I leave and form a company B? Can applying for a copyright of the code at http://www.copyright.gov in my name prevent any legal disputes in the future? Can I use it as evidence for legal defense? Could adding a note specifying the company A as exclusive license holder clarify the arrangements? If I leave and the company A sues me, what evidence would they use against me? On what basis would the sue since their business is in completely different industry than software (wholesale goods). Every single source file was created/stored on my personal computer with proper documentation including a copyright notice with my credentials (name/email/addres/phone). It's also worth noting that I develop significant part of the software prior to my involvement with the company A as student. If I am forced to sign a contract and the company A doesn't honor the verbal agreement, making claims towards the ownership, what can I do settle the matter legally? I like to avoid legal process altogether as my budget for court battles is extremely limited at the moment. Would altering the code beyond recognition and using it for the company B prevent the company A make any copyright claims? My common sense tells me that what I developed is by default mine in terms of IP, unless there is a signed legal agreement stating otherwise. But looking online it may be completely backwards, this really worries me. I understand that this is not legal advice, and I know to get the ultimate answer I need to hire a lawyer. I am only hoping to get some valuable input/experience/advice/opinion from those who were in similar situation or are familiar with the topic. Thank you, PT

    Read the article

  • New PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 On Demand Standard Edition provides a complete set of IT services at a low, predictable monthly cost

    - by Robbin Velayedam
    At Oracle Open World last month, Oracle announced that we are extending our On Demand offerings with the general availability of PeopleSoft On Demand Standard Edition. Standard Edition represents Oracle’s commitment to providing customers a choice of solutions, technology, and deployment options commensurate with their business needs and future growth. The Standard Edition offering complements the traditional On Demand offerings (Enterprise and Professional Editions) by focusing on a low, predictable monthly cost model that scales with the size of your business.   As part of Oracle's open cloud strategy, customers can freely move PeopleSoft licensed applications between on premise and the various  on demand options as business needs arise.    In today’s business climate, aggressive and creative business objectives demand more of IT organizations. They are expected to provide technology-based solutions to streamline business processes, enable online collaboration and multi-tasking, facilitate data mining and storage, and enhance worker productivity. As IT budgets remain tight in a recovering economy, the challenge becomes how to meet these demands with limited time and resources. One way is to eliminate the variable costs of projects so that your team can focus on the high priority functions and better predict funding and resource needs two to three years out. Variable costs and changing priorities can derail the best laid project and capacity plans. The prime culprits of variable costs in any IT organization include disaster recovery, security breaches, technical support, and changes in business growth and priorities. Customers have an immediate need for solutions that are cheaper, predictable in cost, and flexible enough for long-term growth or capacity changes. The Standard Edition deployment option fulfills that need by allowing customers to take full advantage of the rich business functionality that is inherent to PeopleSoft HCM, while delegating all application management responsibility – such as future upgrades and product updates – to Oracle technology experts, at an affordable and expected price. Standard Edition provides the advantages of the secure Oracle On Demand hosted environment, the complete set of PeopleSoft HCM configurable business processes, and timely management of regular updates and enhancements to the application functionality and underlying technology. Standard Edition has a convenient monthly fee that is scalable by number of employees, which helps align the customer’s overall cost of ownership with its size and anticipated growth and business needs. In addition to providing PeopleSoft HCM applications' world class business functionality and Oracle On Demand's embassy-grade security, Oracle’s hosted solution distinguishes itself from competitors by offering customers the ability to transition between different deployment and service models at any point in the application ownership lifecycle. As our customers’ business and economic climates change, they are free to transition their applications back to on-premise at any time. HCM On Demand Standard Edition is based on configurability options rather than customizations, requiring no additional code to develop or maintain. This keeps the cost of ownership low and time to production less than a month on average. Oracle On Demand offers the highest standard of security and performance by leveraging a state-of-the-art data center with dedicated databases, servers, and secured URL all within a private cloud. Customers will not share databases, environments, platforms, or access portals with other customers because we value how mission critical your data are to your business. Oracle’s On Demand also provides a full breadth of disaster recovery services to provide customers the peace of mind that their data are secure and that backup operations are in place to keep their businesses up and running in the case of an emergency. Currently we have over 50 PeopleSoft customers delegating us with the management of their applications through Oracle On Demand. If you are a customer interested in learning more about the PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 Standard Edition and how it can help your organization minimize your variable IT costs and free up your resources to work on other business initiatives, contact Oracle or your Account Services Representative today.

    Read the article

  • Can notes/to-dos in code comments sent to code-reviews result in an effective refactoring process?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I want to start/improve a culture of collective code ownership at my company but at a geographically distributed level... I'd say there is some current collective code-ownership mentality, but only at single geographical sites. This is a follow-up to this question: What is the politically correct way of refactoring other's code? I'm just wondering if submitting *just code comments* for code reviews (we have ReviewBoard, possibly upgrading to Crucible) could actually be an effective mechanism to get the conversation started on improving code, without having others feel territorial about their code. For example, if I add: //ToDo: Refactor this code and that code because of reasons X and Y Then, submit it for code review, and it gets accepted... it could be considered as an agreement (which I think is sometimes harder to get with new code up front). At the same time, the author (and others) might have an easier time digesting and accepting the proposal; rejecting a proposal because it might break things will not longer be a valid reason and therefore the fear of making a change is lost... and at the same time, do not invest 10 hours optimizing something that no one thinks it is worth it and opposes to it just out of fear. This is all conjecture, but I'm feeling something like this (submitting refactoring notes in code comments at the code-review process) would work. Has anyone done something like this in practice?, if so, what have been the results?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >