On 2 Dec 2000, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
> Now, if you ask me, the main problem is that so far Microsoft servers
> were used with Microsoft clients, and so the incorrect code paths
> were never exercized. Microsoft could have done white box
> testing on their own code, but they obviously haven't. They
Fynnily enough I have some first hand information (that I can't cite
=) that says opposite. M$ has a very fine-grained, big-budget, efficient
(?) testing scheme but somehow that doesn't seem to do the job. Not all
bugs are discovered by testing.
> it's what it looks like. This, added to the fact that they
> usually develop/test only for one architecture will let bugs
> pass through.
I presume you mean windos clients are used to test smb shares?
This is quite likely to be a culprit. But then again m$ has a history of
breaking standards and protocols on purpose and always blaming the other
end. This thread (the start) seems to have proven that the idea has gone
through very well -- their users have absolute faith in them and always
blame someone (-thing) else.
Nevertheless, I agree that if windows crashes, windows has a
bug/flaw/lacking (depending on wheather what made it crash was
use/unexpected_use/downright_cruel_use) there.
