Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

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.

wrong.

it's because of functionality that can't be had otherwise and there is
definitely specific hardware needed for optimum functionality.

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.

the cloud wasn't practical then. now it is.

just look at the success of the chromebook.

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.

bill did not get the internet.

microsoft was very late in offering native tcp/ip support, something
macs had in 1988, while windows 95 did not unless installed by the user
(and all the related hassles).

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

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

atc has outages.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

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 agree with you on the profit, where are all the iphone users backing up to
and why do Apple only supply 5GB free when the smallest device is 8GB.
If you don;t have a personal computer you should be backing up to the cloud.

you don't understand how apple's cloud works.

you don't need 8 gig to back up 8 gig.

(I'm using the iphone as I know people that use them on my Mac as a backup
rather than the cloud).
I don;t think you can just plug a HDD into the USB port and back everything
up, there;'s a reason for that I guess.

of course you can.

I think it's interesting to note, though, that various
cloud strategies also date back a long time in the PC
era.

I'm not sure that's true for me anyway the cloud idea represents a wireless
connection and me not needing any aditional hardware to make use of it.

The 'Cloud' is njust a buzz word it's still HDDs and file system on the
actual ground somewhere in the world.

the cloud is not a buzzword.

it's a very real and functional thing that is going to become more
prevalent going forward.

On 7/10/2014 10:12 PM, 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 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.


According to some folks who work from home, they do not rely on the
cloud, from any provider, except as an emergency backup. The use one of
the services that permit remote access to an office machine.

--
PeterN

On 7/10/2014 10:11 PM, 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.

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 Register certainly does not follow the British penchant for
understatement.



--
PeterN

On 7/11/2014 12:35 AM, nospam wrote:


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


Any IT manager who relies on that statement should be immediately fired.

--
PeterN

On 2014-07-11 18:10:39 +0000, John McWilliams said:

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"!

Let us just say it is the word which best describes what others might
think of my attitude of late.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-07-11 18:10:39 +0000, John McWilliams said:

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"!

Let us just say it is the word which best describes what others might
think of my attitude of late.



--
Regards,

Savageduck



Attitude, shmattitude ...

We have good days, we have bad days, life goes on.


Some days we're loved and adored, the next even those near and
dear can't wait to show us the door.

It's a crazy world, and I love every minute of it...

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

Any IT manager who relies on that statement should be immediately fired.

you know so little it's dangerous.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:52:07 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

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

Maybe we all have!

My plea is for a bit more trimming.

I've just trimmed my beard. Does that satisfy you?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens