<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>DesignNotes - Latest Comments in #gmailfail Arrogance</title><link>http://designnotes.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://designnotes.disqus.com/designnotes_by_michael_surtees_raquo_blog_archive_raquo_086/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:32:20 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: #gmailfail Arrogance</title><link>http://designnotes.info/?p=1877#comment-15967793</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I don't use Google Talk so I had to take it at face value that NYT posted about their lack of communication via gmail. In any case I kind of question how moving servers could cause a major outage... &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Surtees</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:32:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: #gmailfail Arrogance</title><link>http://designnotes.info/?p=1877#comment-15896557</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think the "Google engineers faced extra difficulties in fixing the problem because the company uses Gmail internally" claim is a bit of sensationalism: while the Gmail website was down, IMAP was still up, as was Google Talk. I _highly_ doubt that the Google engineers were _that_ crippled because of the lack of a web interface. The media just likes the hyperbole. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Sameer Vasta</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:33:22 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>