arturmarques.com iLog Welcome Guest | Login or Register

If you want to use C# to write CGI applications, you might stumble on some technical difficulties, when using the IIS web server: no matter what are the permissions you set for the folder holding the CGI executable, whenever executing it, the web server doesn’t process the file and tries to serve it as if the client had requested its download!

One workaround is to explicitly map some dummy extension, to the EXE that you want to use as the CGI application.
For example, map “.CSX” to the executable that is the output of your C# CGI solution.

The HTML that needs to invoke the CGI, must invoke the dummy (zero bytes) .CSX file, because invoking the .EXE would produce the IIS problem already mentioned.

In order to do the “.CSX” <—> “CGI.EXE” mapping, (1) create one server side directory (virtual or not) to hold the C# CGI solutions.

The picture below shows that, in some computer, the “\cgi-bin\cgi_cs” folder was chosen to hold the C# executables.

After (1), make sure that you (2) create an “IIS application” for the folder, having execute permissions for BOTH script and executables.

Once the application is created, it is possible to configure it. So, (3) click the configuration button.

(4) The relevant tab in “application configuration” is the “mappings” tab. Here, click the “Add” button. This operation is the way to build the aforementioned “.CSX” <—> “CGI.EXE” relation.

(5) In the “mapping” dialog, browse to the C# .EXE file that is intended to run as a CGI; then type “.CSX” as the extension; then you can uncheck the “check that file exists” option and, finally, press the OK button.

If the OK button is dimmed/grayed/not enabled, just click once on the executable textbox!

(6) After this, the “application configuration” dialog box should list the “.CSX” extension at the bottom.

In order to use the new mapping, restart (stop, then start) the IIS web server.

Having done these six steps, all that is left is to code the right invocation of the CGI. For example, if using forms and its action attribute, point the action to some empty .CSX file.

To build an empty CGI.CSX file, go to the “command prompt” and type “copy con cgi.csx”, followed by ENTER, followed by CTRL+Z (which is the end-of-file character).

I was just browsing, when I found this on digg.

Most posts there seemed “too hot”, so I decided to cool off, gain distance, and then write my own thoughts.

People are wrong, when they assume that file copying is necessarily “stealing”.

In many countries, the consumer is allowed to make copy(ies), for personal use, and even when he/she is not allowed, one should understand that laws can be poorly written, to the point of being unfair, so nothing is definitive and critical thinking will always be more valuable than dogmatic readings. The whole story of (the evolving) Law is an example. The probability of poorly written laws increases, as the complexity of matters increases – digital goods and digital services are a complex and relatively recent field.

Facts: (1) the Internet is flooded with easy, even transparent, ways to access copyrighted content; (2) the contents industry managed to push laws that make this status quo illegal. Two worlds are colliding: the world of how things de facto are, versus the word of how things should be, according to the contents industry. This harsh collision shouldn’t be happening at all. This happens because the contents industry was incapable to think ahead, incapable to strategize the Internet, and is now transferring its own business-model & technological lack of response to some Internet users, who literally take the blame, for a bully who didn’t do his homework.

Are the laws abusive? Out of focus?

Yes, they can be abusive when they demand too much from the consumer. As a consumer one should NOT be obliged to know much about the Internet technologies/services and their related legal issues, the same way one is NOT obliged to understand, for example, the fabrication and the trade laws related to Chinese cotton T-Shirts, or the legal agreements that make it illegal for some firms to sell some labels’ music. For example, Apple can NOT legally sell Beatles, yet you can buy Beatles, via iTunes (Apple’s digital music store) - who is breaking the law? The consumer? Apple? Both? Is the consumer obliged to know these details, when buying Beatles? Are these details even made available, when subscribing to the service?

If an Internet technology is so clearly harmful and wrong – as downloading music via file sharing services is, according to most music industry associations –, the consumer, as with other technologies/services on the market, should be VERY informed about it, as in (1) don’t open a working CD-A player, because it is has an active laser; and (2) don’t smoke, because it can kill you, etc, etc.

Are there short term solutions? I think there are, but they touch (strong) “upstream” economic agents, instead of (weak) end users. For example, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) could block some communications, unless specifically asked to allow them, by their clients, which would sign statements that they understand their responsibilities, on doing such communications. This already happens with some fixed line services. This way, legal problems could be moved upstream, to fewer, more professional, more responsible, economic agents.

To expect the consumer to NOT use some technologies/services, on the presumption that he/she understands them AND understands the related laws, is the same to expect people to suddenly stop using CO2 emitting cars, after understanding what Kyoto’s protocol means for their tax payers pockets, yet without giving them alternative energy technologies – it would be really nice if things could happen as swiftly and as easily as that, but the most superficial reality check shows that it just can’t be done without creating acceptable consumer alternatives.

It is very dangerous what some music industry associations are doing. They are bullying the people that support(ed) their business – the people who do pay(ed) to listen to music! One can’t exclude an extreme reaction from the consumers, like replacing music with other forms of entertainment, like gaming, jogging, etc. I would recommend reading and even writing your own music, for a suave transition!

It is also worrying that some governments stand quiet, allowing some associations to frighten their fragile citizens, most times ignorant on the subject, not obliged to fully understand the technological and legal sides of what comes with (apparent) zero barriers, only because those associations preferred to spend money on legal weapons, instead of money on technological solutions, that could help prevent future problems for both parties (the industry and the consumers). Look ahead, don’t look back.

As it is, the music industry is a clear example of what can happen when the people with the power to decide, can’t strategize a new media, can’t evolve, can’t adapt to it, can’t understand what once was their market, and don’t recognise a sterile path, even after stepping on it, for half a decade!

Regarding this subject, I read an interview, published by the Portuguese magazine PUBLICA, where one J. Kennedy, representing one music industry association, surprisingly assures that “0.99 USD is a fair price for one music”…
The issue is that in an open economy, that answer (of 0.99 USD being “fair”, or not) belongs to the market. It belongs to no other entity.

If the market decides that 0.99 USD is too much, then it will be too much. The same way, if the market decides that 1000 USD is “fair”, then it will be… This interview/statement is one written hard evidence that some people, who could be part of the solution, are very much out of focus.

On 2006–02–28, ICANN “renewed” its deal with Verisign (NASDAQ:VRSN), basically delegating on them the running of the .COM hierarchy, by far the most valuable of the Internet’s name spaces. This new contract, yet to be approved  by the U.S. Department of Commerce, will expire in year 2012, but - like the previous contracts - gives VRSN the first right to renew… and that was one the reasons for a disputed meeting: registrars, like GoDaddy and Network Solutions strongly opposed.

For the consumer, the #1 problem is the accorded price increases of 7% per year, per domain, starting in 2007. This should hurt the registrars’ business and explains their strong opposing.

I read this on Yahoo: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060301/icann_verisign.html?.v=6

GoDaddy.com’s newsletter (2006–03–03) also mentions this.