Community

Conrad Sallian wrote:

Hello Max,

Thank you for your suggestion.

However, this specific "bug" was just something we overlooked on the building stage rather than a bug in the program itself (related to its functionality, that is). So we decided to keep it the same number.

Yeah, that is very bad practice. The build output from one version of the compiler and build system can vary with the same source code.  The building stage is essentially part of the "application" along with the source code. It should be tracked just as the same the code. Some companies have policies that even prevent the release system from ever generating different builds using the same release number to prevent this scenario.  Not only do you have your own code issues handling this issue internally, now you have two different "viewer6.12.b2.exe" files that you had posted for almost two weeks on the Internet.

No updated release date, no reference in the release notes about the correction. So the release notes loses credibility as being inaccurate when bugs were fixed and when new updates appear. Some people may not be willing to try a beta build to fix various bugs that was JUST released but think, "hey, it's been out two weeks, it's worth a try" but it's now actually only got ~1 day of public testing. Beta release notes should be verbose, more so than stable release notes, IMO.

On top of that, it received zero QA before it was posted for open beta testing. Now, it is expected to have MAJOR bugs in beta builds and the user accepts that. Happens to Microsoft ALL.THE.TIME. But they also have automated checks in place that (should) prevent showstopper bugs before they get into a public beta and quickly pull facepalm builds that fail even the most basic mandatory function.

Right now, my PC has two files names "viewer6.12.b2.exe" with different file sizes. One has a digital signature  signing date of May 13, and another one says May 18. The release date is May 6. The server's beta 2 has a signing time of May 5, which is what I'd expect with a May 6 release. But May 13 and May 18th? This implies that you didn't just have TWO different "viewer6.12.b2.exe" with different hashes, but (AT LEAST) THREE.  Can you comment on that?

Can you see how confusing this is by reusing release numbers and release dates? How do we know if the beta2 from May 6 was busted or if the May 13 stealth update introduced the epic fail? Like I mentioned before, this version reusing and non-release note update practice has lost so much credibility in beta testing for me.  I've always had my issues with your development style, but this one will be the one that takes the cake.

tl;dr I scream internally reading your response. I need to go take a chill pill now.

May 6 signed build: SHA-1: ???
May ??? signed build: SHA-1: ???
May 13 signed build:  SHA-1: 384B5BF7DB12D10EE637F0F317CDC8737F6F12DA
May 18 signed build: SHA-1: 5EB2C20CBB11C68EBBB40E0EDB5508D7D0CD8CCB

Polina Krasnoborceva wrote:

Hello Peter and Max,

Thank you for your feedback.

We've managed to reproduce the issue and implemented a quick fix for it. We apologize for the caused inconvenience.

An upd ated build of version 6.12 Beta 2 is available on this page. Please try updating your Viewer and see if the issue persists.

Please let us know if you have more questions.

Other jobs needed doing, so I've only just been able to get back to this.  I have bad news and good news.
Bad news:  On a Windows XP machine which already had Viewer version 10.10.0.0 installed, I imported the address book fr om the machine I normally use (also XP), and installed my licence.  Quick test, log onto a remote machine, worked.  Then installed the new beta.  Like Max, I now still had the address book and licence.  Good so far.  Online remote machines showed as online after a short delay.
Quick test, try to log into several remote machine both internet and local connections, in each case got Access Denied for five trys before it gave up.
Good News: On a Windows 7 machine, fresh install of the new beta, install licence, import address book.  I get my familiar se t of remote machines show, online ones show as online after a short delay.
Quick test.  Log on to one of the remote machines, Success!  And I can remote control it.
So there is still a problem with the beta 2 viewer on XP, which means I can't switch to using it routinely without a fairly major reconfiguration of what machine are wh ere.
Oh and by the way, the gibberish text in the uninstall progress window is also specific to XP.

Polina Krasnoborceva wrote:

   Quick test, try to log into several remote machine both internet and local connections, in each case got Access Denied for five trys before it gave up.

Could you please confirm that you did not encounter this issue when using version 6.10.10.0 prior to updating to the 6.12 Beta 2 version?

Hi Polina.

Confirmed I did not have this issue prior to updating to the beta.
It's late here now, and I've shut down both the machines I used for testing.  I'll track down the log files and send them to you, but it might not be until the weekend, depends what else needs doing.

Regards

Peter

Hello Polina.

Peter Gray wrote:

Confirmed I did not have this issue prior to updating to the beta.
It's late here now, and I've shut down both the machines I used for testing.  I'll track down the log files and send them to you, but it might not be until the weekend, depends what else needs doing.

Polina Krasnoborceva wrote:

Of course, please feel free to update us further on the issue anytime. Meanwhile, we will try to reproduce the issue as well.

OK, it turns out I had some time available this afternoon, so I've done a test and have just emaied you the viewer and host logs for an attempted login from an XP to another XP box on my LAN.
Let me know if you need any more data, e.g attempted login from XP to Windows 7, or using internet connection.

Peter

Here's an update on using version 12 beta 2 with windows XP.
Yesterady I installed the beta viewer on an XP box and a W7 box.  Both could see my other machines (all with version 10.10.0.0 host) on direct and internet connections, but the XP viewer could not log on to any of them.  It responded Access Denied, and I sent you reader and host log files.
The W7 viewer, on the other hand, could log onto and control other machines both XP and W7.
This evening I used the W7 beta viewer to remote install the beta host onto an XP box and a W7 box.  Both installations reported successful completion, and after the usual delays while the hosts restarted etc., the viewer could see the hosts come online.  The version 10.10.0.0 viewer on the XP box that I am typing this on also saw the hosts come online.
The W7 beta viewer could log on to and control the W7 beta host.  Even better, the XP v10.10.0.0 viewer on this box could also log into and control the W7 beta host!
However, the W7 beta viewer could not log on to the XP beta host, it got Access Denied.  This XP v10.10 viewer also got Access Denied from the XP beta host.
I have now run out of machines I can safely experiment with.
I can no longer remotely control the XP beta host; when I manage to get physical access (that is, find and connect the keyboard, mouse and monitor!), I'll get log files and send them to you.

On a side note, earlier posts mention that the v12 host does not use the display driver.  Does intalling the new host automatically remove the driver, or does that have to be done separately?