|
Is it just me or is the method in which you need to update SSMS ridiculously inane.
You get a notification within the app that it's out of date. The third one this month. So you click the link thinking it will initiate an in-app update. It's just a console app, after all.
But no. You are sent to a website where you choose the download you need, you download it, find it, double click it, and then get a notice that it can't proceed because SSMS is open. Your only option is to close and restart the installer.
So you close SSMS, relaunch the updater, wait, then click the Close button on the "we're finally done" screen and relaunch SSMS. And, of course, delete the app you just downloaded because it's littering your desktop.
And the point of the update? No idea. It looks and acts exactly the same. There's not even a "Fixed the icon to use the correct shade of chartreuse" or something update summary paraded in front of you so you feel good about that 5 mins of wasted time and the 1hr of recollecting your thoughts.
Can someone remind me just how much I pay a year for the privilege of using SQL Server? 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Can someone remind me just how much I pay a year for the privilege of using SQL Server?
Because you finally get panignation support, that's only been available in other RDBMSes for decades, but still. You finally get that! Lucky you.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
And it rocks my socks.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, there was about 6 weeks between 17.3 and 17.4. So how do you get 3 updates of SSMS in 1 month.
If you are talking about VS2017, then I agree.
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggestion I tone down my exaggerations and embellishments when having a rant?
I'm not sure I can do that.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that if you rant you better know the facts, otherwise ranting goes about nothing.
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
oo-kaay.
Well, thanks for missing the entire point of my rant.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
You are welcome
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: And the point of the update? No idea. It looks and acts exactly the same. There's not even a "Fixed the icon to use the correct shade of chartreuse" or something update summary paraded in front of you so you feel good about that 5 mins of wasted time and the 1hr of recollecting your thoughts.
A lot of the time I think what you're getting is compatibility with the latest random twiddle in the azure DB import/export blob formats.
Certainly I've never noticed anything else change from one update to the next beyond the cryptic fail message i was getting going away and the process working again. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: And the point of the update? No idea.
You mean you don't waste another five minutes reading the changelog[^]? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Simmons - fuchsia.
Maunder - chartreuse.
Who's next? 
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
They're gone. I just updated my favicon list for 2018 and here's the latest incarnation of crap we have to keep track of:
<head>
...
<!-- don't use a generic generator for images, we're artists after all -->
<link rel="icon" href="/favicon.ico?v=1.0" /><!-- old way 16x16, 32x32, 48x48 -->
<link rel="icon" sizes="128x128" href="/favicon.png"><!-- Android Normal Resolution -->
<link rel="icon" sizes="192x192" href="/favicon-hd.png"><!-- Android High Resolution -->
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="57x57" href="/touch-icon-iphone.png"><!-- iPhone 1-3GS -->
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="76x76" href="/touch-icon-ipad.png"><!-- iPad and iPad mini -->
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="120x120" href="/touch-icon-iphone-retina.png"><!-- iPhone 4-8 -->
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="152x152" href="/touch-icon-ipad-retina.png"><!-- iPad and iPad mini 2nd gen -->
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="167x167" href="/touch-icon-ipad-pro.png"><!-- iPad Pro -->
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/touch-icon-iphone-6-plus.png"><!-- iPhone X, 6-8 Plus -->
...
</head> And yeah I comment my HTML. It gets stripped out anyway. Don't judge.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 17-Dec-17 21:48pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of favicons, I noticed a few days ago after the 'feature update' for Winten that my IE tabs no longer show an icon...even for CP.  I've been too busy to try and fix it...maybe this week. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah - that kills me.
Seriously: how hard is it just to have us produce a 256 x 256 icon for use across all devices. Resizing images is kinda a solved problem.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Totally, I mean I get it. 8k displays and 16x16 won't exactly work. But yeah, 152x152 isn't even a power of two. WTF apple. Like we if did a PoT 256x256 like you said, we could just scale the sucker anywhere from 32 to 512 and have it look good. But no, we have 152. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It's so good to hear other people complain about this.
truly inspiring.
I was grumbling and mumbling to myself as I was generating images for the iOS app I released into the apple store.
I couldn't believe all of the sizes I had to produce : one was 167 x 167 and they call it 83.5 X 2X I have no idea what that means. I ended up having to create 16 different sizes of icons for the app store. Loads of fun. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - 83.5pt x 2X is a bit silly.
Apple's guidelines[^] ask for a 1024 x 1024. Surely they can just scale that bad-boy and we can be done, no? I'm sure phone users on a slow EDGE connection wouldn't mind downloading half a Mb of image just so their 16x16 icon in the browser tab looks good.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It's like the browser wars are back. And history repeats itself.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: 512
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But no, we have 152.
I think you hit on something there. Someone with typing dyslexia meant to key in 512 but accidentally typed 152, and somehow it got put into production without anybody noticing, now it's too hard to change. 
|
|
|
|
|
I can actually see something like that happening. It's far to frequent of an occurance to ignore. Recently I ordered new widows for the front of my house. The actual window heights are 53.5 inches tall but the windows they ordered where 35.5 inches. Talk about a real facepalm.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
The funny part man, is that's probably exactly what happened. But nobody wanted to be the one to admit it.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Hey I'm curious. Do you still even bother with IE9 support? I'm writing a new web app, and I'm totally dropping it. In fact, if I detect a user is using IE9 or less I drop them with this bad boy to blank out the entire screen so they can't do anything at all...
body, body * {
background: none !important;
direction: ltr !important;
display: none !important;
font-size: 0 !important;
height: 0 !important;
line-height: -9999 !important;
margin: 0 !important;
padding: 0 !important;
position: static !important;
text-indent: -9999em !important;
width: 0 !important;
white-space: normal !important;
}...before showing them a message saying to freaking upgrade already. Curious to know your thoughts.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
We've just moved to ignoring anything below IE 11 (We used to support down to IE7, and even a few years ago down to IE4). The site still works on older IEs, but it's frankly a PITA to test on older IE installs, and it's less than a fraction of a percent of our users.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for the info. Only reason I bother when IE10 even is for all the people treating Win7 like the next WinXP and never upgrading to 11 or Edge as well, for more of a non-technical audience.
Yay... web dev. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
