Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545655
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


Except in the web browser world it doesn't work like that. Chrome for example worked fine with Sitecore CMS system backend until a month ago, now it doesn't work ... because Chrome has ramped the version. It still works in IE10.

Exactly. Chrome incremented a version.

What you're actually complaining about is how often some browsers see updates. That's a different debate entirely.

Yes so you code for a feature set in version X and that is supported until version Z. Which is exactly what I said.

It's what you said, but not what you're arguing. All (read: ALL) software works this way. That's the whole f--king point of version numbers. What you're bitching about is the frequency that some browsers update. And that argument is an often debated topic.

Edited 2012-12-18 15:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:20 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


Exactly. Chrome incremented a version.

What you're actually complaining about is how often some browsers see updates. That's a different debate entirely.


No it isn't if you are producing an intranet application.

It's what you said, but not what you're arguing. All (read: ALL) software works this way. That's the whole f--king point of version numbers. What you're bitching about is the frequency that some browsers update. And that argument is an often debated topic.


I was saying that is the same reason why .NET isn't open sourced, is because companies test their app running against the .NET 2.0 runtime for example in the same way that some companies test against IE8 because that is what is deployed on workstations.

Micrsoft guarantee that Version X in .NET and IE will have a certain feature set and they won't change until it is outside of the support cycle.

It is like swimming through porridge on this site sometimes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:32 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

No it isn't if you are producing an intranet application.

That doesn't change anything.

It doesn't matter whether content is being served locally or externally; just so long as the browser continues to support the content.

However version numbers aren't the issue. It's the updating frequency that you're complaining about.


I was saying that is the same reason why .NET isn't open sourced, is because companies test their app running against the .NET 2.0 runtime for example in the same way that some companies test against IE8 because that is what is deployed on workstations.

Micrsoft guarantee that Version X in .NET and IE will have a certain feature set and they won't change until it is outside of the support cycle.

Again, that's how all software works. Even on Linux, with it's dependency hell, something compiled to run against libdep.so.3.2.1 will always support libdep.so.3.2.1, be that tomorrow, next week or 300 hundred years from now. Where Windows excels is that those version are available for years - decades even. So an application compiled against .NET v2 will work on all versions of Windows in the future because .NET v2 will always be included in foreseeable versions of Windows. (it's also why Windows has such a high disk footprint).

What you're talking about is the frequency of updates and how well older versions are supported. Yet what you keep typing about is how some non-MS software magically changes without the version number changing; which is completely idiotic.


It is like swimming through porridge on this site sometimes.

To be honest, from where I'm sat it sounds like you've got the very basics of IT muddled. I'm sure you're smarter than that so I'm just puzzled where we've got our wires crossed.

Edited 2012-12-18 15:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[11]: Comment by shmerl
by pepa on Tue 18th Dec 2012 16:17 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by shmerl"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

OSNews is like swimming through porridge for Microsoft shills?? That's a nice compliment..!

Reply Parent Score: 4