But at the most basic level - it was a human error (as I read it). Someone
didn't mark the update package as a critical update.
Arguably (and I can see this), because the package had 5 weeks before it was
required...
From: Tim Evans [mailto:tev...@sparling.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Tim Evans tev...@sparling.com wrote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2013/03/01/details-of-the-february-22nd-2013-windows-azure-storage-disruption.aspx
I give MSFT credit for doing a good analysis and *publishing it*. A
lot of companies just say
Agreed - human error.
I'd suggest that it would be better to package that update not quite
as far out - say a week, maybe two - and it's much more likely that
the package would be correctly marked.
Kurt
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote:
But at the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Tim Evans tev...@sparling.com wrote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2013/03/01/details-of-the-february-22nd-2013-windows-azure-storage-disruption.aspx
I give MSFT credit for
: Details of the February 22nd 2013 Windows Azure
Storage Disruption
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Tim Evans tev...@sparling.com wrote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2013/03/01/details-of-the-february-22nd-2013-windows-azure-storage-disruption.aspx
I give MSFT credit for doing
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote:
But at the most basic level – it was a human error (as I read it). “Someone”
didn’t mark the update package as a critical update.
At the most basic level, all errors are human errors. :-) Either
someone didn't
]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
10:28:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Details of the February 22nd 2013 Windows Azure
Storage Disruption
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Tim Evans tev...@sparling.com wrote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Steven Peck sep...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you just manage to agree and also imply Sure, they released it but are
probably still not telling us what 'really happened?
why wouldn't you take this at face value?
Because people lie? And big companies lie?
--
Peck
[mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
12:11:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Details of the February 22nd 2013 Windows Azure
Storage Disruption
Did you just manage to agree and also imply Sure, they released
Message -
From: Steven Peck
[mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
12:11:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Details of the February 22nd 2013 Windows Azure
Storage Disruption
Did you just manage to agree and also imply Sure
System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Tue, 05 Mar 2013
13:08:08 -0800
Subject: RE: Details of the February 22nd 2013 Windows Azure
Storage Disruption
I suspect, if you check the terms of service for Azure, you wouldn't be able
to sue them for anything more than
11 matches
Mail list logo
