Re: metalink still unuseable the 2nd day ...
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:26:24 +0100
Message-ID: <7m1rl0F3fp0t7U1_at_mid.individual.net>
On 12.11.2009 04:51, Noons wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:26 am, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> We disagree here. I didn't have the slightest problem with old
> Metalink.
> It did its job quite well, metaphorical adjectives apart.
>
> Of course: it didn't support OCM. But hey: I never asked for OCM
> anyway,
> neither did a lot of users. It's an imposition from Oracle: not
> needed,
> not asked for. To cause this mayhem and bad blood with clients for
> the
> single reason of updating something that works so that something else
> no
> one asked for could be supported, is sheer madness.
There seems to be a trend in the industry: Red Hat's current support portal is also catastrophic. You get "amazing" load times for simple pages making every additional click a real pain. If you have FireFox extension Lori installed you can see that the first reply is there pretty fast (well under a second) and for the whole page to load it takes several seconds (at least in my company's network) and >100KB. And what do we get for this? A lot JavaScript whose main purpose seems to be to auto expand the text box where I can put my comment. I prefer simple HTML UI's. I don't think that you need Flash for a support portal. I mean, the main purpose is to get at information quickly and not win the next web design award.
Sorry for the rant.
Cheers
robert
-- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 01:26:24 CST