On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Harri Haataja wrote:
>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:28:57 +0200 (EET)
>From: Harri Haataja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: amanda to blame for NT crashes?
>
>On 2 Dec 2000, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
>
>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.
With the mess M$ has made of the smb protocols, it's a wonder it
still works at all.
Every release of windows has come with a changed protocol. There's all
sorts of oddness in each version to allow it to talk smb-like with all
previous versions. It's a horrible mess. (An ex-Microserf told me
this.)
I'm surprised Samba works at all!
>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.
Boy, can I tell you some stories about Microsoft re-writing email internet
standards! And F77 language standards, too...
>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.
Yes. But then, M$ has never felt that a GPF was anything to avoid. :p
--
Joi Ellis
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.visi.com/~gyles19/
