That's my point- the mentality IS changing- at least in the realm of development tools. Listening to speakers from the visual studio dev team is night and day different than it used to be. They are very interested in providing tools that support development on more than just windows and IE- I'm pretty sure they would love to see Silverlight fully supported on every platform- not just windows.

They are getting behind jquery in a big way (for their non Silverlight web solutions, obviously), which already demonstrates a shift in the way they are thinking.

MS has a lot to overcome in this regard, both in their internal culture and external perception. I don't know if they'll be able to do it, but the dramatic shift in their attitude toward dev tools (at least, that's how I perceive it) is a good sign.

Maybe a bit too forward thinking. One of our dev teams hit a bug in Visual Studio 2008, where the /O2 optimization flag wouldn't be passed all the way down to the compiler executable if the solution file was converted from 2003/2005 to 2008. KB958148. Microsoft's answer? Based on this and what our team heard back, it's fixed in 2010, and thats that. No patch to 2008 is expected.

That would all be fine and dandy if our teams could move to 2010. Problem is, they are waiting on a certain company, called Microsoft, to release support for 2010 for some little game console they make. That, and support for Direct X wasn't supported on 2010 until 4 days ago. Every time they pull in an old solution file, potentially from middleware upgrades or whatever, they have to be mindful of this bug until they can move to 2010.

For something like this there is no way I would bother downloading and installing a program but I will click on a link and check it out for five minutes.

Something that I would use repeatedly I would rather install than use in a browser but my attitude to that is changing too. I really like gmail and can't see ever wanting a local email client again.

They've just updated the page with some new unit tests and are back to IE9 not passing 100% of all the tests posted (though that said IE9 passes more than all the other browsers in all but one categories).

Still no IE 8 tests to compare how far Microsoft has come, or tests against Safari 5 and Chrome 5 (both released).

I think thats what gets me the most about that page, they proudly show a preview release of IE 9 against old versions of their competitors. It's not that hard to go find the beta, or even now released versions of Chrome, Firefox or Safari. The tests may be very useful, but Microsoft's presentation of them still shows their bad competitive attitude, one that often tries very hard to taint the competition without telling the full truth.

I'm also not seeing how Microsoft's numbers for SVG line up with this persons tests. It looks like MS is just cherry picking parts of the SVG spec to test against and show, vs actually testing the full spec. That 100% number is quite misleading.

It looks like Microsoft's SVG tests are geared towards SVG 1.1 (Second Edition), which is currently a proposal, not a recommendation, and Firefox doesn't claim to support it, only 1.1. I'd imagine that the other browsers are the same.

So, yeah, it's pretty misleading.

See, I'm the opposite. I feel Google designs and implements crappy software, including GMAIL which I think is atrocious both through the Web interface and their extremely bastardized POP implementation - I haven't tried IMAP yet.

They may put together amazing load balanced systems and server farms, but on the front end, Google doesn't know jack. Another long-time hate-on is for their image search. Ugh.

Bastardized POP implementation? What's to bastardize? POP does nothing more than transfer emails in a flat structure. (I haven't used Gmail's POP because I haven't used POP in, like, 15 years, so maybe I'm wrong.)

Not sure what is wrong with the gmail POP3 service. It did what I wanted it to do when I used to use it. You can configure it to leave the gmail copy, mark the gmail copy as read, archive the gmail copy or delete the gmail copy.

For starters, it tries to do one of the things you do with IMAP over POP, which is to save a copy of your sent mail - mail you send via SMTP goes into your INBOX. SO you end up downloading back to your client a copy of all mail you send. That's just bloody stupid and a piss-poor design.

The mail client can't delete mail from the POP server. I haven't read the POP RFC in years, but I've never connected to any other POP server where the mail client was prevented from deleting mail on its own accord.

Yeah, there's more... Anyway, I'm traveling and currently in Nova Scotia so I'm trying not to spend too much time online. Just enough to deal customers mostly.

I've never noticed it trying to download something I had just sent.


Its a setting as I previously mentioned.


More? The first problem I've never experienced and I would have expected Google not to have done that. The second one is because you've not configured it properly.

If you want better management then use IMAP like you're supposed to.

Does anyone else think that the vuvuzela is the most annoying sound on earth [edit: specifically a group of them]? Yes, more annoying than this.

It's enough to make me refuse to watch any matches where these things are prevalent. I understand that it's part of the South African culture, but that doesn't mean you have to allow it in the World Cup.

Ugh, I freaking HATE those things...

Fortunately, others hate them too.

Okay, that's weird. I see where they're coming from, sorta, but that's awkward.


Okay, the POP client can't delete mail out of the Gmail inbox. I'll give you that. But that isn't a violation of POP. It deletes it out of the POP box, though. Effectively, the web interface and the IMAP interface are synchronized, and the POP interface is really just a copy of everything that's sent to the "real" account. The POP RFC explicitly states that it has no interest in what goes on behind the scenes.

Yes.

I do take issue with the article though, the atmos soundtrack will have been provided by the host broadcaster, then the other broadcasters stick their own commentary over. So notching out them out of the atmos feed is really quite simple.

Oh, I know there are people out there who hate them, I was just curious about people on here

If you thought a regular plastic vuvuzela was annoying then be glad this isn't outside where you are.

An individual vuvuzela doesn't seem to be that obnoxious but I guess when you've got thousands of them all being used then it gets a little bit more annoying.

I've been using email longer than some gmail engineers have been alive. I have everything configured properly. Their server side prefs allow gmail itself to delete mail, but your client has no control over this action - your client cannot delete content from gmail, period. Their pop interface simply doesn't map 1:1 to what you're presented with in their web mail system, which is unlike every other web mail system I've ever used in the past 15+ years.



But I don't have a desire to use IMAP with gmail. I'm not "supposed" to do anything. Their system is supposed to work with established standards and it doesn't.

Both the problems I mentioned are well known and can't be worked around without using multiple email addresses - as I've mentioned in another thread.

The simple mater of fact is that Google simply sucks at design. I mean, they've got some architectural prowess when it coms to search, but even that's been going down hill for years. I'm sorry, but most of what I've seen from them, or technologies they've touched since acquisition, have just gone to crap. Sketchup another prime example. Bag of hurt.

I guess the option in the settings is just for show then and doesn't do anything if you're named Bruno.

2. When messages are accessed with POP

keep Gmail's copy in the Inbox
mark Gmail's copy as read
archive Gmail's copy
delete Gmail's copy

If you want the ability to mess with email that isn't in your Inbox then you can't use POP3 since that is designed to only handle 1 mailbox.


It does follow the standards. They're just not doing what you want it to do.

Don't use gmail if you don't like it.

Trevor, you're not reading. Like I said, my email expertise, including with IMAP and POP predates GMAIL. I know how its options work, I know what they do, and I know that they don't give you the ability I mentioned. Your pop client cannot delete mail from gmail, period. It doesn't matter whether you use that setting or not, only gmail deletes mail from gmail.

POP has never worked when accessing mail from multiple computers. The best you could do is leave everything on the server. Point being, if you want to access your mail two different ways and have it be consistent between them, POP has never been a possibility. POP was only ever designed to transport mail from a server to a client. It's the final level of delivery.

If you don't like the way that Gmail runs its POP backend, don't use it.

At least it isn't as bad as it was at the Confederations Cup last year. Holy crap, it was drowning out the broadcasts. It really does seem like they added some filters to the audio already when compared to that bleeding ear festival.

http://i.imgur.com/CGbjS.png
(not included inline due to width)

HAHA

This would have been better, though.

Is it just me or does the word "vuvuzela" look and sound like it ought to be a euphemism for something quite unbelievably rude? It's still a staggering thought to me that at these football matches thousands of blokes get their vuvuzelas out, many of them even get blown -- quite loudly -- and nobody even gets arrested.

Peter

Vuvuzela Hero

The first Vuvuzela Heroes pic I saw had notes like an actual song. I made the comment that you could tell it was fake because it would just be all the notes playing at the same time continuously.

This one is the real deal.

God how I hate those damn horns. A friend's family had plans to go to the World Cup this year and invited me along with them. I'm glad I decided not to go, I probably would've murdered somebody over those things.

Happy I still have not heard the noise, and I don't anticipate hearing it at all. I have seen a spectral plot on a clever science site which showed a nice set of fourier transforms for removing the drones, but have no intention of listening to the things after all I have seen said about them.

:-)

They're absolutely evil.
Well, okay, not evil, but not good either.

The best thing about football is the crowd-participation factor. But those plastic and tin horns just kill it, dumbing it down to the dumbest level.

Drowning out clever chants, discouraging singing, etc.

Ugh!