Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06..._2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the users’ own fault for logging out of
their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of
following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew
about."

I wonder who that was?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06..._2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the usersÂ’ own fault for logging out of
their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of
following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew
about."

I wonder who that was?

What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.

They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of
this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC
outage from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36
hours" in this report.
The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and at
no time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps. It certainly
effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative work
and online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.

There were always other means of delivering/sharing or collaborating
while the CC services were down, DB, or Box for example. Particularly
since the CC apps never stopped running.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:43:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06..._2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the users? own fault for logging out of
their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of
following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew
about."

I wonder who that was?

What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.

And it astonishes me just how sensitive are some of the fanboys.

I actually posted the above, not to have a dig at Adobe, but to
establish the attitude we see in this newsgroup is not unique to us. I
didn't expect you to bite.

They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of
this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC
outage from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36
hours" in this report.

The time of outage seems to depend on the application. According to
http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk Adobe first "first tweeted that users were
unable to login to their Adobe accounts at 2:22pm Pacific time on
Wednesday, and the service was still offline as of 1pm on Thursday".
That's just short of 24 hours but we don't know how long it was off
before Adobe reported it. Nor do we know when the last one came back
on.

On the 15th May The Register in http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk reported
that the outage lasted "roughly 27 hours".

The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and at
no time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps.

Even according to Adobe, the time seems to have been longer than 18
hours and I'm not aware of allegations of people simply losing their
CC apps.

It certainly
effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative work
and online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.

Now where before have I heard that sort of claim? You should ask the
editor of " at least one national newspaper (who) failed to publish
its Adobe DPS-based tablet edition on Thursday morning as a result."
See http://tinyurl.com/l8yacqk I expect there were others in a similar
situation.

There were always other means of delivering/sharing or collaborating
while the CC services were down, DB, or Box for example. Particularly
since the CC apps never stopped running.

But if you are running to a tight deadline, as so much of the graphics
industry is, you may not have time to find and use a work around.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
| anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.
|

In my experience TheRegister is the most informative
and technically knowledgeable of all the tech news sites.
They're my first stop every morning. I don't think they're
specifically anti-anything. What they are, though, is
snide. It seems to be a British tradition to "report from
the gutter". They love to put down anyone, whether it's
Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Google, Facebook, or
even a man caught humping a picnic table or dead deer.
(Ouch.) And their headlines can be frustrating. Often I skip
articles because I simply can't decipher the overly clever
and/or juvenile headline. But if you weren't biased yourself
I think you'd find plenty of criticism of Microsoft, Yahoo,
and just about everyone else.

Stories about crashed clouds are an especially hot topic
these days, no matter whose cloud it is, because the issue
of whether the cloud fad has staying power is a hot topic.

On 2014-07-11 01:32:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:43:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06..._2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the users? own fault for logging out of
their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of
following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew
about."

I wonder who that was?

What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.

And it astonishes me just how sensitive are some of the fanboys.

What astonishes me is some folks take a site such as the Register,
which is known for tabloid type attacks on all areas of the computer
industry seriously.

I actually posted the above, not to have a dig at Adobe, but to
establish the attitude we see in this newsgroup is not unique to us. I
didn't expect you to bite.

I bit. So?

They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of
this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC
outage from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36
hours" in this report.

The time of outage seems to depend on the application. According to
http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk Adobe first "first tweeted that users were
unable to login to their Adobe accounts at 2:22pm Pacific time on
Wednesday, and the service was still offline as of 1pm on Thursday".
That's just short of 24 hours but we don't know how long it was off
before Adobe reported it. Nor do we know when the last one came back
on.

On the 15th May The Register in http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk reported
that the outage lasted "roughly 27 hours".

The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and at
no time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps.

Even according to Adobe, the time seems to have been longer than 18
hours and I'm not aware of allegations of people simply losing their
CC apps.

Where did Adobe state that?
I know what I experienced, which was the inability to log-in to Reveal,
and Behance for about 18 hours.

It certainly
effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative work
and online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.

Now where before have I heard that sort of claim? You should ask the
editor of " at least one national newspaper (who) failed to publish
its Adobe DPS-based tablet edition on Thursday morning as a result."
See http://tinyurl.com/l8yacqk I expect there were others in a similar
situation.

There were always other means of delivering/sharing or collaborating
while the CC services were down, DB, or Box for example. Particularly
since the CC apps never stopped running.

But if you are running to a tight deadline, as so much of the graphics
industry is, you may not have time to find and use a work around.

That sounds like poor IT management where they should always have a
fall-back delivery system in place, Adobe certainly isn't to blame
because somebody chose to put all their eggs in one basket. I am quite
sure that there were those in the graphics industry who saw this event
as a hiccough, and have since moved through it. There haven't been any
further reports of similar disruptions, so I suspect this event is
still going to be referenced 12 months from now, and would have grown
to 48 hours.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-07-11 02:11:44 +0000, "Mayayana" said:

| What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
| anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.
|

In my experience TheRegister is the most informative
and technically knowledgeable of all the tech news sites.
They're my first stop every morning. I don't think they're
specifically anti-anything. What they are, though, is
snide. It seems to be a British tradition to "report from
the gutter". They love to put down anyone, whether it's
Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Google, Facebook, or
even a man caught humping a picnic table or dead deer.
(Ouch.) And their headlines can be frustrating. Often I skip
articles because I simply can't decipher the overly clever
and/or juvenile headline. But if you weren't biased yourself
I think you'd find plenty of criticism of Microsoft, Yahoo,
and just about everyone else.

Just more British tabloid press. Probably inspired by Murdock and News
of the World.

Stories about crashed clouds are an especially hot topic
these days, no matter whose cloud it is, because the issue
of whether the cloud fad has staying power is a hot topic.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:12:18 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-11 01:32:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:43:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06..._2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the users? own fault for logging out of
their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of
following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew
about."

I wonder who that was?

What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.

And it astonishes me just how sensitive are some of the fanboys.

What astonishes me is some folks take a site such as the Register,
which is known for tabloid type attacks on all areas of the computer
industry seriously.

I take their information seriously but their style is just a nonsense.

I actually posted the above, not to have a dig at Adobe, but to
establish the attitude we see in this newsgroup is not unique to us. I
didn't expect you to bite.

I bit. So?

So what? It's nothing to me. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you
are being a shade too sensitive?

They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of
this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC
outage from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36
hours" in this report.

The time of outage seems to depend on the application. According to
http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk Adobe first "first tweeted that users were
unable to login to their Adobe accounts at 2:22pm Pacific time on
Wednesday, and the service was still offline as of 1pm on Thursday".
That's just short of 24 hours but we don't know how long it was off
before Adobe reported it. Nor do we know when the last one came back
on.

On the 15th May The Register in http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk reported
that the outage lasted "roughly 27 hours".

The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and at
no time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps.

Even according to Adobe, the time seems to have been longer than 18
hours and I'm not aware of allegations of people simply losing their
CC apps.

Where did Adobe state that?

They didn't state it explicitly but they did tweet times - see above.

I know what I experienced, which was the inability to log-in to Reveal,
and Behance for about 18 hours.

But how long had it been off when you first tried it?

It certainly
effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative work
and online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.

Now where before have I heard that sort of claim? You should ask the
editor of " at least one national newspaper (who) failed to publish
its Adobe DPS-based tablet edition on Thursday morning as a result."
See http://tinyurl.com/l8yacqk I expect there were others in a similar
situation.

There were always other means of delivering/sharing or collaborating
while the CC services were down, DB, or Box for example. Particularly
since the CC apps never stopped running.

But if you are running to a tight deadline, as so much of the graphics
industry is, you may not have time to find and use a work around.

That sounds like poor IT management ....

The cause of the problem sounds like poor IT management too, this time
on Adobe's part.

where they should always have a
fall-back delivery system in place, Adobe certainly isn't to blame
because somebody chose to put all their eggs in one basket.

The whole IT industry is to blame for all the hype the preach about
cloud computing. For my part, I don't trust the infalibility any of
the cloud, let alone as a backup.

I am quite
sure that there were those in the graphics industry who saw this event
as a hiccough, and have since moved through it. There haven't been any
further reports of similar disruptions, so I suspect this event is
still going to be referenced 12 months from now, and would have grown
to 48 hours.

I am intrigued that you are generating so much heat about something I
regard as a side issue to the point of my original post. You start off
by denigrating the messenger, go on to say that the problem wasn't
really serious and end up by blaming the victim.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:14:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-11 02:11:44 +0000, "Mayayana" said:

| What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
| anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.
|

In my experience TheRegister is the most informative
and technically knowledgeable of all the tech news sites.
They're my first stop every morning. I don't think they're
specifically anti-anything. What they are, though, is
snide. It seems to be a British tradition to "report from
the gutter". They love to put down anyone, whether it's
Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Google, Facebook, or
even a man caught humping a picnic table or dead deer.
(Ouch.) And their headlines can be frustrating. Often I skip
articles because I simply can't decipher the overly clever
and/or juvenile headline. But if you weren't biased yourself
I think you'd find plenty of criticism of Microsoft, Yahoo,
and just about everyone else.

Just more British tabloid press. Probably inspired by Murdock and News
of the World.

But informed tabloid press.

Stories about crashed clouds are an especially hot topic
these days, no matter whose cloud it is, because the issue
of whether the cloud fad has staying power is a hot topic.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
| anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.
|

In my experience TheRegister is the most informative
and technically knowledgeable of all the tech news sites.
They're my first stop every morning. I don't think they're
specifically anti-anything. What they are, though, is
snide. It seems to be a British tradition to "report from
the gutter". They love to put down anyone, whether it's
Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Google, Facebook, or
even a man caught humping a picnic table or dead deer.
(Ouch.) And their headlines can be frustrating. Often I skip
articles because I simply can't decipher the overly clever
and/or juvenile headline. But if you weren't biased yourself
I think you'd find plenty of criticism of Microsoft, Yahoo,
and just about everyone else.

their articles consistently have numerous technical errors.

Stories about crashed clouds are an especially hot topic
these days, no matter whose cloud it is, because the issue
of whether the cloud fad has staying power is a hot topic.

the cloud is *not* a fad.

anyone who thinks it is has missed the boat. heck they're not even at
the pier. the cloud is here to stay and is going to become *more*
common.

writing about cloud issues is nothing more than linkbait. everything
has issues of some sort or another.

you don't see articles about hard drive crashes, do you? you don't see
articles about power outages, do you?

either of those will cause an interruption in the user's work, possibly
with data loss and maybe a *lot* of data loss. it's what keeps drive
recovery companies in business.

a cloud outage might be annoying, but the data won't be lost.

On 2014-07-11 03:45:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:12:18 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-11 01:32:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:43:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06..._2014_comment/
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the users? own fault for logging out of
their Adobe IDs when they experienced sign-in issues instead of
following a convoluted workaround that no-one except Adobe knew
about."

I wonder who that was?

What gets me about the Register and its reporting is just how
anti-Apple, & anti-Adobe they are.

And it astonishes me just how sensitive are some of the fanboys.

What astonishes me is some folks take a site such as the Register,
which is known for tabloid type attacks on all areas of the computer
industry seriously.

I take their information seriously but their style is just a nonsense.

I actually posted the above, not to have a dig at Adobe, but to
establish the attitude we see in this newsgroup is not unique to us. I
didn't expect you to bite.

I bit. So?

So what? It's nothing to me. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you
are being a shade too sensitive?

I am just feeling a tad curmudgeonly this week.

They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of
this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC
outage from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36
hours" in this report.

The time of outage seems to depend on the application. According to
http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk Adobe first "first tweeted that users were
unable to login to their Adobe accounts at 2:22pm Pacific time on
Wednesday, and the service was still offline as of 1pm on Thursday".
That's just short of 24 hours but we don't know how long it was off
before Adobe reported it. Nor do we know when the last one came back
on.

On the 15th May The Register in http://tinyurl.com/kv5fepk reported
that the outage lasted "roughly 27 hours".

The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and at
no time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps.

Even according to Adobe, the time seems to have been longer than 18
hours and I'm not aware of allegations of people simply losing their
CC apps.

Where did Adobe state that?

They didn't state it explicitly but they did tweet times - see above.

I don't Tweet.

I know what I experienced, which was the inability to log-in to Reveal,
and Behance for about 18 hours.

But how long had it been off when you first tried it?

It was running around midnight of the day before, and I had access
until around 01:00 hours of the day of the even.

I woke at about 06:00 of the day of the event and was unable to log-in.
So, there was a 5 hour window, between 01:00 & 06:00 PST when the
outage might have started. I tried to log-in at various times through
the day, finally succeeding at about 20:30 PST. So, I definitely didn't
have access from 06:00-20:30, 14.5 hours. I am guessing that the CC
went out between 02:00-03:00 PST (it was working at 01:00). So that
gets me to 17.5 hours to 18.5 hours.


It certainly
effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative work
and online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.

Now where before have I heard that sort of claim? You should ask the
editor of " at least one national newspaper (who) failed to publish
its Adobe DPS-based tablet edition on Thursday morning as a result."
See http://tinyurl.com/l8yacqk I expect there were others in a similar
situation.

There were always other means of delivering/sharing or collaborating
while the CC services were down, DB, or Box for example. Particularly
since the CC apps never stopped running.

But if you are running to a tight deadline, as so much of the graphics
industry is, you may not have time to find and use a work around.

That sounds like poor IT management ....

The cause of the problem sounds like poor IT management too, this time
on Adobe's part.

A server crash is poor IT management?

where they should always have a
fall-back delivery system in place, Adobe certainly isn't to blame
because somebody chose to put all their eggs in one basket.

The whole IT industry is to blame for all the hype the preach about
cloud computing. For my part, I don't trust the infalibility any of
the cloud, let alone as a backup.

That is one of the reasons I don't use a single Cloud Storage solution,
I have space on Dropbox, Box, PogoPlug, CC, & iCloud, they are not
mirrored and each serves a different purpose for me and if needed there
is a degree of function redundancy between them. I have my original
files and project files in a HDD archive.

I am quite
sure that there were those in the graphics industry who saw this event
as a hiccough, and have since moved through it. There haven't been any
further reports of similar disruptions, so I suspect this event is
still going to be referenced 12 months from now, and would have grown
to 48 hours.

I am intrigued that you are generating so much heat about something I
regard as a side issue to the point of my original post. You start off
by denigrating the messenger, go on to say that the problem wasn't
really serious and end up by blaming the victim.

As I said, I have been feeling particularly curmudgeonly this week.


--
Regards,

Savageduck