Who the Hell wrote this crappy forum software?

[MrVideoSenior]

Ya, I knowm it says Jive.

This forum refuses to work with Opera, either for Windblows or Solaris 10 x86 Unix.  This area for entering the post does not show up.

I had to start Exploder and I HATE Exploder.

What is even more stupid is the catch-22 in that the forum software is used for the feedback.  If the forum is broken, how the Hell is someone supposed to be able to let anyone know that it is broken.

If Adobe wants great forum software, they should use what AVSForum uses.  It works with any and all browsers.

[MichaelKazlow]

There are alternative browsers to MSIE without going to Opera. Many use Firefox/Mozilla/Gecko based rendering engines. Others use Safari (or Webkit based browsers). It is a pain not to have your preferred browser supported, but there are alternatives to MSIE available.

[MrVideoSenior]

As pointed out by other users in this thread complaining about the text jumping about (which has been hapening to me as well), one should not be forced to go to a browser other than the one preferred by the user.

I'm not going to install this browser, or that browser, just because the site doesn't know how to write compliant web pages, or forum software.  As mentioned, AVSForum, as well as other forums, use software that is browser blind.  I use Opera at home, and have done so for many, many years.  At work I'm currently using Firefox.  One of these days I change it to Opera as well.

The forum software needs to be fixed, not the user.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

While Mr Kaslov sa

ys you don't have to use IE or even Opera. The fact remains

, That the problem of unnecessary line breaks shows up in, evidently IE (as per your post),

but also: Opera, iCab, OmniWeb, Saf

ari, Camino, FireFox, SeaMonkey. If the Forum software was written to World Wid Web Consortium Specifications. there would be zero errors in the code, and visually as well and would works as it should.

But JVD will be around to harp on the point t

hat is a known bug, and its being looked at. He notes Jives own software is up in the 4+ area. while ours stuck in the two's That means that adobe latched on to two to three year old software. I suspect is was done to save money. rather than get a decent package  that would have few problems.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Phillip Jones wrote on 2/23/2010 3:00 PM:

He notes Jives own software is up in the 4+ area. while ours stuck in the two's That means that adobe latched on to two to three year old software.

ClearSpace 2.5.16 was released on August 24th last year, which makes it

less then 6 months old. Please check the facts before spouting nonsense.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Well you yourself several months ago said they were using version 4+ on

their own site. 2.6.16 is the latest update. I'm having to post by email

because the website is down. Now what were you talking about then?

[Jochem van Dieten]

Phillip Jones wrote on 2/23/2010 4:17 PM:

Well you yourself several months ago said they were using version 4+ on

their own site.

I did not. As a matter of fact, Jive only updated their own site to

4.0.x on January 8th 2010.

2.6.16 is the latest update.

Version 2.6.16 does not exist.

Now what were you talking about then?

I have no idea what you are going on about. The only thing I can do is

repeat myself: please check the facts before spouting nonsense.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Ah ha. You've just said they gone to version 4. on their own site. my

apologies for the wrong version number here, I'll have to see if I can

get back on through the web interface to determine the correct number.

Seems a large disparity if we are 1.5 to 2 versions behind.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Phillip Jones wrote on 2/23/2010 5:56 PM:

Ah ha. You've just said they gone to version 4. on their own site.

Yes they have, on January 8th. But your claim was "you yourself several

months ago said they were using version 4+ on their own site". That

claim is your own fabrication.

Seems a large disparity if we are 1.5 to 2 versions behind.

What is the impact of the number of major versions behind on the fixing

of bugs? Was the linebreak bug fixed faster in 3.0.x or 4.0.x then it

was in 2.5.x? Is there any correlation at all?

The number of versions behind will become a problem when in a few months

Jive drops support for the 2.5.x versions. Until then it has no impact

on the fixing of bugs because fixes just get backpatched to the next

release of the old branch anyway.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Not necessarily a Fabrications but not remembering the correct version.

Sorry. and your right the version number for our software is 2.5.16 not

2.6.16 In any evey they are a full ahead at least maybe more even then.

My apologies for the misinformation.

[Guest]

Wasn't me.

[the_wine_snob]

FWIW, Chrome (on PC) seems to have gotten around the line-breaks, and the camera icon posting JPEG's issue - at least for me.

Still, as of about 2 weeks ago (as of Feb. 23, 2010), the Adobe fora seem to do an auto log-out/log-in to the wrong ID, but now I know to watch for it. seems to be at 9:00AM, 3:00 and 8:00PM AZT (GMT -8, IIRC, as we do not change here in AZ, USA). I now know that at those times, I will likely be logged-out, and instantly back in, though as another person. Oh well, no more phantom line-breaks, and I can use the camera.

Good luck,

Hunt

[Guest]

Ahh yes.  You've stumbled upon a truth that many of us (some now banned?) tried to point out when and before this circus act was hired.

Chrome is the only browser that works 'decent' here it seems.  (IE is far too slow when on a crap system attached to a slow network so even that has it's problems...)  It's rather pathetic, these Jiveware "engineers" (that means primate back on Planet Jive) don't have a clue at how to design software, let alone TEST software, or write code that works across browsers.

It's all part of the big IT trend for fancier (yet not really improved) HTML/JavaScript rubbish web sites... which break much more often of course.  (Possibly every new browser version since we're talking JavaScript/AJAX/DOM/DHTML TRASH.)  RIAs can be done right (see Adobe Flex or Silverlight apps), but.... not like this.  lol

Funny thing about that version change from (what was it?) version 2.x to 4.x within ~six months time (really??? I hope that's not true.)-- This just illustrates how piss poor this jiveware is, only garbage software needs so many updates in such a short time.  Do they charge for each version, I wonder?  Those jives are a bunch of snake oil peddling scam artists.

Jive Software can go jive themselves...

[Guest]

(Possibly every new browser version since we're talking JavaScript/AJAX/DOM/DHTML TRASH.)

just wrapped up a new full workflow product for a client using asp.net and ajax. rave reviews my friend.

it's not the tools, it's the carpenters.

[Guest]

dave milbut wrote:

it's not the tools, it's the carpenters.

Think of Homer's spice rack, go up an order of magnitude, and you've got Jive.

(10 random line breaks and 6 involuntary log-outs this afternoon.)

Goodnight. 

[Guest]

dave milbut wrote:

it's not the tools, it's the carpenters.

Oh, it's the tools too, people just like to make excuses for and rationalize for "cool" stuff.  If it's simple AJAX and DHTML without too much crazy going on (i.e. not these forums), you might get away okay on a web site.  I'm not opposed to it on a website as long as it always works...

I'm speaking mostly from an RIA (rich internet application) use case, which gets much more complicated than a stupid website.  A 'forum' like this blurs the distinction a bit, especially when they try to do the crap they're attempting in this jiveware.  AJAX isn't well suited for creating real RIAs, for sure.  (Here comes the AJAX fanboys to dispute...)  Once people realize that these 'frameworks' they're using (because they've already discovered that using AJAX/DHTML/DOM crap themselves sucks @$$) don't address the need to test, update, re-build, re-deploy, and test your "AJAX application" (it's like saying ".bat application") EVERY single time you have a new version of a browser come out--or a new type of browser entirely--perhaps they'll start to realize what the hidden cost of such muppetry is going to be over time.  (And I can't wait for the browser wars to heat up even more again.) 

Of course you could just "hope" that most of your users browsers will continue to work correctly (maybe almost 100% even will! lol), without testing and updating if needed, but then you get Jiveware.

Don't get me wrong, with Jiveware, it's most certainly the carpenters more so than anything.  It may even be possible to develop decent 'forum' software using AJAX hacks (sparingly), since a "forum" is arguably not such a complex application.  (They are however more complex than most people imagine.)  But crap tools tend to bring out the fail in the term "incompetent failure jiveware scripter".   Crap tools reveal the difference between someone who doesn't know what they're doing at all (jiveware jives), and someone who actually does have some idea of what they're doing more clearly than good tools do.

[Guest]

You vill conform to the required browser, which is the one that the president of Jive uses, and not complain. Unfortunately, none of us knows which browser that is. Note that words like 'Hell' and 'crappy' are not permitted on these forums and will trigger a self-destruct of your OS, unless you have a Mac, of course, in which case everything will work perfectly, except when trying to navigate these forums, for which there is no help. Over...

[Guest]

I'm speaking mostly from an RIA (rich internet application) use case, which gets much more complicated than a stupid website

all i'm saying it can and is done, and done well, regularly. like i said, i just finished a RIA business process to rave reviews. and it doesn't get much more complex than what we've done.

the rant is misplaced. yes, the technology has to be used properly, but it's ok as long as you know what you're doing and fit it to the right task.

[Guest]

Most don't know what they're doing (look at Jiveware, and this is just a web forum with some light ahax relatively speaking!).  And that still doesn't address the problem of maintenance, not to mention the shortcomings of having to test, update, build, deploy, and test for each new browser or browser update.  I'm saying that these same morons thought EJB2 was a good idea (monumental disaster) and they're probably making yet another huge mistake.  People don't consider the hidden costs in these things, most are too amazed that someone actually got a browser displaying HTML and running crappy scripts to actually look like a compiled application.  If this is all people really "want" the Internet to be, I wonder how they have enough ambition to wake up in the morning at all.

[Guest]

I wonder how they have enough ambition to wake up in the morning at all.

If they had direct deposit they wouldn't have to.