It occurs to me that for nearly a decade now Microsoft has been championing the 'thin client.' Saying things like "the network is the OS" and wanting businesses, developers and others to move to heavy-hitting powerful server platforms that would contain most of the programs and information, and the users would have more watered down desktops which would access most of their applications (office, mail, etc) from the server.
So imagine my shock, surprise and stream of words filthy enough to make a sailor blush when I kept getting this error while trying to publish a website:
Error 5 An error occurred loading a configuration file: Failed to start monitoring changes to '\\[machinename]\[drive]$\[directory]\[website]\bin\ko' because the network BIOS command limit has been reached. For more information on this error, please refer to Microsoft knowledge base article 810886. Hosting on a UNC share is not supported for the Windows XP Platform.
WTF? Hosting on a UNC share is not supported? How the hell can this be? Microsoft touts how Visual Studio 2005 is such a great development platform. How collaboration and all that jazz is great and easy and built right into it. What kind of crack are they smoking? If hosting on a UNC is not supported, how in God's green earth are we supposed to develop web applications? On our desktops? Sure, ok, but what about all that great built-in collaboration? Oh, I guess that baby gets thrown out with the bathwater in this one.
What makes things worse is that this seems to be a rather sporadic error. On top of that, I can run the publish command, get this error with a fold like "ko" (as above) and run it again, making no changes, and it gives me a different folder. Seems almost totally random. Thankfully, all the folders it was complaining about were either 1) localization folders added by their AJAX control toolkit, or 2) App_Theme folders that we weren't using anyway. So I was able to delete all those without causing undue issues with the site.
Checking the KB article the error instructs you to (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810886) doesn't really do much for me. First off, the development server we are using didn't have these keys at all in their registry. The KB article is for windows 2000 server, and we are using Windows Server 2k3. So this article is pointless. Every Google find points back to the same damn MS KB article.
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
I just had to rant a bit.
Sorry.
