Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:37:47 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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?

When it occurred during maintenance, almost certainly.

See
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...e_maintenance/

"Adobe has blamed a maintenance failure for the 27-hour outage in
its Creative Cloud suite that left video and photo editors unable
to log into online services."

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,

Eric Stevens

| their articles consistently have numerous technical errors.
|

A well-argued point indeed. I'm always impressed by
your extensive use of corroborating data.

| the cloud is *not* a fad.
|

Says you. It's obviously a fad. That's not in question. Whether
cloud is an improvement or not, and whether it's a good plan
for companies, is a hot topic. And of course, the fact that you
feel a need to assert adamantly that it's not a fad is a good
example of just what a hot topic it is.

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

Says you. That's part of the ongoing discussion. Data could
be lost. Anyone who stored data on Megaupload lost it. But the
issue is more a general discussion about the pros and cons of
cloud. The possible cons are lack of security and instability. An
outage might not usually be such a big deal, but it raises the
question of whether corporate cloud services are really the best
solution for business computing.... or personal computing, for that
matter. Likewise, when the Feds take over Megaupload or a judge
demands all of someone's deleted gmail (from Google, not from the
person in question) it calls into question the general security
of the cloud model. Does it really make sense to rent storage
with limited rights when one could do one's own storage? The
only compelling argument for cloud storage is convenience.

Corporate cloud services exist almost entirely as a profit
strategy (as distinct from private clouds). That's somewhat of
a elephant in the room. While the pros and cons of cloud are
fairly easy to delineate, the discussion gets heated because
there's a big marketing push toward cloud. You read media
wiseacres who are shills for big tech companies and suddenly
you're a fanatic pro-clouder, despite having no particular reason
or motive of your own to justify such an extreme viewpoint.

OSs have matured. Business software has matured. People are
not waiting in line anymore to get Intel's latest chip or Adobe's
latest update. If that were not true, no one would be talking about
cloud. They'd be too busy taking checks to the bank, as they
were in the 90s. But now it's a much more mature business and
companies are strategizing how to make more money out of it.
Enter SaaS: What if we could charge for usage of the product,
rather than just charging for the product itself? The extras like
online storage are just smoke and mirrors to obscure the real
issues. *Cloud is a fad precisely because it has to be marketed
heavily in order to sell. As a strategy to get more money from
customers, it doesn't have sufficient selling points on its own to
make it fly without getting a push.*

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.

| This sort of thing has been going on for decades.

Yes, but terminals were an economic and practical necessity.
PCs changed that. The new cloud trend is partly due to Internet
connection improvements, but mostly it's due to profit
strategies. There isn't any "hardware argument" for this
new focus on cloud.

I think it's interesting to note, though, that various
cloud strategies also date back a long time in the PC
era. But they've mostly failed due to irrelevance. Remember
the "thin client" craze around 2000? PC magazines were
yapping about how everyone was going to pay twice as much
for half as much computer and then use online software. Why?
Who wants such a big, clunky box next to their desk when
for a mere $1,000 extra they can have a sleek, mini-PC? They
kept pushing the idea until it finally just faded away.
And Windows Active Desktop (1998) was basically an
attempt to sell people on the idea that they were always
online, and that they should want to buy stuff while they're
online. Win98 had ads stuck to the Desktop, for companies
such as Disney. Windows customers were invited to
"subscribe" to the Disney "channel". But it was really just
a bunch of ads masquerading as futuristic interconnectedness
and valorized as a Bill Gates's stroke of genius. Bill's
such a genius that he realized the importance of the
Internet before anyone else. But of course Bill G's genius is
in making a buck, so the whole Active Desktop thing was really
just Microsoft's first attempt to cash in on usage of windows
rather than just sales of software. The \Windows\Web folder
in Win98 was full of corporate icons from companies who were
hoping to get in on the ground floor of Internet advertising by
having people sign up to their "channels". Presumably all those
icons represented fees paid to Microsoft, which was being
positioned to be the gatekeeper: Welcome to Windows 98. The
Internet is BIG. We get it. Bill gets it. Here, have some ads.




-----------
In the 80-90s it was X-windows here the idea that the programs (apps)
are all stored on a central server, this meant all you need are terminals
much cheapr than fully fledge computers, thos ethat pushed these ignored the
facts of unrelibility or unusability of teh service if teh server went down
or there were other problems such as lift engineers curring through cables.
Years or so after it all changed to local systems where everyone had their
own PC with the programs and document on that. Now we have a sort of hybrid
situration which works most of the time and ignores problems that some users
might face because overall most people don;t experience problems.

On 7/10/14 PDT, 2:43 PM, 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 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.

Wouldn't bring this up except the very word was discussed recently: s/b
"affected"

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

Maybe we all have!

My plea is for a bit more trimming.

On 7/11/14 PDT, 7:45 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 11 July 2014 14:13:38 UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:

Says you. It's obviously a fad. That's not in question. Whether
cloud is an improvement or not, and whether it's a good plan
for companies, is a hot topic.

I wonder what would happen if air traffic control stored all their information in the cloud. Be interesting what would happen in even a small outage, let alone nearly a day.

Which points out that some things don't belong on the cloud; others can
be quite useful in the cloud.

Faddishness comes in when some thinks it's the thing to do, and do it
for that reason. Clearly for some the cloud has that appeal.

By the same token, it will not go away, but will be modified over time,
and hopefully people will use it where it makes sense, and not where it
doesn't.

On 2014-07-11 17:48:44 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 7/10/14 PDT, 2:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens sai
d:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06...loud_2014_comm
ent/

"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing
suggested that it was the usersÂ’ own fault for logging out o
f
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 outag
e
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.

Wouldn't bring this up except the very word was discussed recently: s/b
"affected"

So? My use of "effected" is appropriate.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-07-11 17:52:07 +0000, John McWilliams said:

trimming.

Done.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/11/14 PDT, 11:01 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-11 17:48:44 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 7/10/14 PDT, 2:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:

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.

Wouldn't bring this up except the very word was discussed recently:
s/b "affected"

So? My use of "effected" is appropriate.

Possibly, but it's stilted!

Let's go back and discuss "curmudgeonly"!

On 7/11/14 PDT, 11:02 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-11 17:52:07 +0000, John McWilliams said:

trimming.

Done.

Thank you!