<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Microsoft on</title><link>https://dawning.ca/tags/microsoft/</link><description>Recent content in Microsoft on</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>Copyright © James Snell</copyright><lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:50:45 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://dawning.ca/tags/microsoft/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Quest to Submit an Internet Explorer Bug Report</title><link>https://dawning.ca/posts/ie-bug-insanity/</link><pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:50:45 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://dawning.ca/posts/ie-bug-insanity/</guid><description>
&lt;figure style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; max-width: 89px;">
&lt;img src="https://dawning.ca/uploads/2009/07/ie_fail.png" alt="">
&lt;figcaption>Put Simply&lt;/figcaption>
&lt;/figure>
&lt;p>Here&amp;rsquo;s the anti-epic tale of my distinct efforts to improve Microsoft Pusher &lt;strong>I&lt;/strong>nternet &lt;strong>E&lt;/strong>xplorer.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Why would I want to improve IE? Well, I don&amp;rsquo;t really, but a sad number of users on the net don&amp;rsquo;t yet know any better. It seems clear to me that Microsoft&amp;rsquo;s selection of what web standards to implement (not the &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium">W3C internationally agreed upon standards&lt;/a>, but rather their own) must be either the product of negligence or an attempt to push their own agenda (mainly to make their competition look foolish in the eyes of their lesser informed users). I think that kind of approach can only work for so long - users continue learn.&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>The Anti-Epic Tale of Making IIS Play Nice with Apache</title><link>https://dawning.ca/posts/iis-and-apache/</link><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:04:56 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://dawning.ca/posts/iis-and-apache/</guid><description>
&lt;figure style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; max-width: 226px;">
&lt;img src="https://dawning.ca/uploads/2009/06/MattDamon.png" alt="">
&lt;figcaption>&lt;/figcaption>
&lt;/figure>
&lt;h2 id="the-mission">The Mission&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>To run an &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_HTTP_Server">Apache&lt;/a> server (on Windows) on the same machine that was already hosting &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Information_Services">IIS&lt;/a>.&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="the-strategy">The Strategy&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>The plan was to alter each virtual host defined in IIS to not bind to the typical HTTP/HTTPS ports (80 &amp;amp; 443), but instead have it use arbitrary ports (was to be 8080 &amp;amp; 4433). With that in place, I could then run Apache normally. In order to get traffic to hit the right sites as hosted by IIS, the apache server would have it&amp;rsquo;s own virtual host definitions for each IIS site. In those definitions, there would be a Reverse Proxy config to get Apache to pass the traffic internally over to the arbitrary ports.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>