On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Dave Stagner wrote:
> This bug can be fixed easily enough by Microsoft, of course. What's
> distressing is that it happened in the first place. A rigorous
> analysis of the scheduling algorithm would have detected this before a
> line of code was ever written (assuming the scheduler works as
> designed... and a bug in the scheduler is perhaps more distressing
> than a design flaw). It raises questions about the rigor of the NT
> kernel's design, which questions Microsoft's very ability to write
> secure code.
> None of this is meant to excuse the countless bugs and design flaws in
> commercial Unix, of course.
Nice qualifier. Thing is, an extensive analysis of code prolly wouldn't
have helped even M$, nor the consumers. Consider the extent to which
unix source has been put through the grinder, and how often new bugs and
insecure programing techniques surface even to this day. Sure, perhaps a
bug or two may have been spotted earlier than some have been now, but to
honestly say and feel that all or most bugs would have been eliminated
upfront??? Well, thank god fer qualifiers...
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.