Re: metalink still unuseable the 2nd day ...
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <b5b06004-a57c-4d7b-8ef9-ae9ce9703601_at_y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 11, 4:05 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:38 am, MBPP <mpacheco_bra..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > IE also worked fine (version 8). I also noted they call the SWF
> > directly without a "wrapper" to check Flash version, etc. My Flash
> > version here is 10.0.32, try to upgrade if you have version 9, maybe
> > it can help? I read somewhere that they demand 9.0.115 or greater I
> > think.
>
> Oh great! So now, besides having to figure out all the db versions
> and patches to make things work, we also are supposed to track the
> "consistency" of browser version and flash version?
>
> Welcome to the brave new world of dba2.0: spend all your time trying
> to get the "easy, time-saving UI" to work!
>
> I'm on 10.0.32 Flash and latest FF and still having minor nagging
> problems with it. It'll go away, I'm sure. But did it really need to
> be like this?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <b5b06004-a57c-4d7b-8ef9-ae9ce9703601_at_y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 11, 4:05 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:38 am, MBPP <mpacheco_bra..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > IE also worked fine (version 8). I also noted they call the SWF
> > directly without a "wrapper" to check Flash version, etc. My Flash
> > version here is 10.0.32, try to upgrade if you have version 9, maybe
> > it can help? I read somewhere that they demand 9.0.115 or greater I
> > think.
>
> Oh great! So now, besides having to figure out all the db versions
> and patches to make things work, we also are supposed to track the
> "consistency" of browser version and flash version?
>
> Welcome to the brave new world of dba2.0: spend all your time trying
> to get the "easy, time-saving UI" to work!
>
> I'm on 10.0.32 Flash and latest FF and still having minor nagging
> problems with it. It'll go away, I'm sure. But did it really need to
> be like this?
I'm leaning towards "yes, meatlink was so creaky and fungusoid, it did." And yes, I'm one of the loudest squawkers about it. But this too will pass, just like the Sidekick fiasco, and Audi sudden acceleration, and hacking of Apple keyboards. Oh wait, that last one just started.
The oracle-l thread about quotes from support people on the phone trying to access MOS/metalink was pretty funny, too.
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. So stupid, I'm still chuckling: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.83.html#subj16Received on Wed Nov 11 2009 - 18:26:38 CST