Subject | Re: grammar was: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
From | Savageduck |
Date | 07/11/2014 20:01 (07/11/2014 11:01) |
Message-ID | <201407111101553510-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | John McWilliams |
Followups | John McWilliams (8m) > Savageduck |
John McWilliamsSo? My use of "effected" is appropriate.
On 7/10/14 PDT, 2:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:SavageduckJohn McWilliams
On 2014-07-10 21:15:39 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>sai
d:John McWilliamsEric Stevens
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/19/adobe_creative_cloud_2014_comm
ent/John McWilliamsEric Stevens
"one Adobe evangelist at the recent CC pre-launch press briefing suggested that it was the usersÂ’ own fault for logging out o
fJohn McWilliamsEric StevensSavageduck
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.
They are forever making less than factual statements, in the case of this particular article they have expanded their claim for the CC outag
eSavageduck
from about 24 hours, to more than 24 hours, to the "some 36 hours" in this report. The reality was the Cloud services were down for about 18 hours, and atno time did subscribers lose access to the CC Apps. It certainly effected those who were dependent on CC services for collaborative workand online publishing, however, what happened was not catastrophic.John McWilliams
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"