|
Forogar wrote: My son is an artist and bought himself the latest iPad, "because that's what real artists use". After a few days he took it back and bought the latest Surface as he wanted "a real computer he could actually use" and it still did everything he needed for his art anyway - plus apparently Photoshop works way better on it.
I hope he (as an artist) got himself the 28" Surface Studio?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still on Win2000 on all of my machines at home.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I have a file server at home running 2000 and the backup is running 2003. Until recently I also had a machine running Vista which worked great from the beginning but then had a catastrophic disk crash and died. I have a couple of Linux systems on VMs along with a DOS 6.2 for nostalgia's sake.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: (what's the opposite of "stunning"?)
In this case, I'd go with "unobtrusive". 
I'd rather have an OS that lets me get on with doing stuff - even if that's just procrastinating - than an OS that wants to show off its "stunning" effects.
Think about it: when you open an application, would you rather have that application open straight away, or have to wait five seconds for the OS to play its "stunning" lookit-me-imma-open-your-app animation?
And how much time do you spend looking at your wallpaper through the translucent titlebar / taskbar / Start Menu background, versus the time you spend looking at the applications you're running?
The UI should be nice, but not to the extent that it distracts from what you're really trying to do.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I definitely didn't want a "stunning" interface - I also didn't want an interface where you can't tell if anything has changed or what sub-window is part of the current application or is a pop-up from somewhere else.
The Windows 7 UI with three-D window frames and shadowing was just enough to tell one window from another without being obtrusive.
In addition I think Microsoft must have shares in some large monitor manufacturing companies as they designed a UI that needed huge amounts of screen real-estate, mostly blank.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: In addition I think Microsoft must have shares in some large monitor manufacturing companies as they designed a UI that needed huge amounts of screen real-estate, mostly blank.
Now that we have 4K monitors, they expect us to waste the extra resolution on resizing everything so all elements take up 150% of the pixels they used to. I fail to see how that's any improvement.
Of course if you keep everything at its original size, text gets too small to read on a 4K monitor unless it's physically large(ish). I solved that problem by using a 40" 4K TV. No resizing needed, and I now have more screen real-estate than I've ever had before.
|
|
|
|
|
Ack. I'm not sure what I'd do without Classic Start Menu. Otherwise, W10 is a pleasant experience, even as one that clung to W7 as long as possible. My assimilation was caused by needing a version IIS of IIS that supported Server Name Indication so I could host more than one HTTPS site on a box.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Ack. I'm not sure what I'd do without Classic Start Menu.
Learn where stuff hides. I haven't bothered with Start Menu replacements in 10, 8.x was another matter and required, 10 just has stuff in different places and learning where they are allows you to jump on any machine and be quasi productive.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I have to use it on my laptops because it was the only OS available for it but I do NOT use it on my desktop machines and this applies to both home and work. I absolutely despise the UI of W10 and I really wish they supported different styles of UI like XP and W7 used to. If it did I certainly would not be using the default UI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link but it is restricted as it needs admin authority to install. Not being an admin is taking some getting used to! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: and they are paying me a lot more than my previous job
So you are a tart - welcome to the club. 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
It's a modern OS like Win7, Win 8.x, OS10, and most if not all mainstream flavors of *nix. Give me a computer with any of those, and I can plug in an external a keyboard, mouse, and a few monitors and convert caffeine into code. 
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
|
|
|
|
|
Quick non-programming-but-probably-programming-related question 
Does anyone have recommendations for a test SMTP program?
I'm running a web service in Azure that sends out emails.
The company I'm currently working at does not have an own infrastructure and the application we're building is 100% cloud.
There's probably "something" in-house I can use, but I'll be happy if I get that data before my retirement
In the past I've worked with FakeSMTP – FakeSMTP - Dummy SMTP server for developers[^], but as I understand it that requires a server to run.
It would be possible to create one in Azure, but I prefer a SaaS solution.
So far I've found Mailtrap.io — Fake smtp testing server. Dummy smtp email testing[^], but I've never worked with it.
Any recommendations?
|
|
|
|
|
I am not even sure that what I write makes sense, but can't you install a server on a virtual machine, and then run the SMTP service on it ?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's an option I'm sure.
But that would require an entire VM to be up and running and maintained for "just" SMTP.
A SaaS model has my preference so I never need to worry about any hardware 
The idea is that I configure that SMTP server and no matter what I mail to whom the SMTP server will simply "swallow" it and my coworkers and I can read the emails from the service's portal.
No one will ever be able to "accidentally" send an email to real people who aren't expecting it.
Not testers, not newbies, and not me
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: not me
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you could write a small console app with an open listener socket on port 25 and return HTTP 250 OK messages to any connection and then close the connection. Just launch it on any machine and point the email traffic there. See SMTP RFC 821[^] for further details.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: HTTP 250 OK
FTFY
Such a simple server should at least wait for a QUIT command and respond before closing the connection. Otherwise there will be a socket error on the sender side when the connection is closed after the first command.
But I guess that is not what he wants when inspecting the received mail is required to check if it has been generated as expected.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit more complicated than that and I don't feel like doing all that work when there are good alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
Can't you just use one of your mail accounts for testing by using the SMTP server of that account and passing the credentials?
Because you will send real mails, this will limit the testing to specific recipient addresses (yours and maybe of some colleagues that are informed about the test mails) but is usually sufficient for testing.
|
|
|
|
|
that's easiest, can even use gmail smtp on a brand new account so you don't have to code the credentials of a real account. It'll only vomit if you try to send too many messages or too soon together, add some delay.
|
|
|
|
|
That's fine if I test this, but I want to make sure no one ever accidentally sends an email to someone who isn't expecting this.
Not testers, not newbies, and not me.
If I use my own account and I leave for a new job I'd have to change the mail settings or get test emails for all eternity.
I also want to be sure that an email is really send to the provided email address (but not actually delivered).
Fake SMTP does a great job at this, but requires infrastructure which I don't currently have.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand from your initial post that you only want to test the mail features. The used mail server settings must be replaced before going live.
The final SMTP server will be probably those of the company running the web site (or the SMTP server of their hoster if they did not have their own one) and a corresponding account (at best one created especially for the web service).
Quote: but I want to make sure no one ever accidentally sends an email to someone who isn't expecting this.
That is a different problem and one of those that can't be achieved by 100 % (besides not supporting mails to be send to addresses entered on the page).
It is a dangerous area. Once such a service is abused, the IP address of the sending SMPT server will be on several black lists.
Quote: I also want to be sure that an email is really send to the provided email address (but not actually delivered).
That requires that the fake server supports that by talking directly to the recipients mail server. Even if he is able to do that it might fail when the source IP is blocked (e.g. when using a dynamic IP adress).
|
|
|
|
|
Fake SMTP always did a good job of making sure no email was sent out to the actual recipients.
You set it up for your test environment and an email is send to the SMTP server, but the SMTP server simply doesn't send it to the recipient
At least that's how I think it works (I don't know much about SMTP).
That's what Fake SMTP does and it's what Mailtrap promises.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
