err, But Steve's conclusion is consistent with my own... On 10/3/05, Micheal Espinola Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce, I don't think you are going to find hard "evidence" for either > conclusion. But Bruce's conclusion is consistent with my own > experiences, and that of many other Administrators that I discuss > issues like this with. > > Since its inception, supporting NT 3.0 beta and onward, I have been > dealing with BSOD's. In total, there have been comparatively very few > times were it was a direct fault of MS code. It has very commonly > been in relation to 3rd party drivers that needed reworking or > updating by the 3rd-party manufacturer. > > This is not PR spin (of which I don't think you could find any > published PR spin for either side of this argument either). This is > real world experience with the NT+ products across i386 and Alpha > hardware platforms using peripheral devices from many different major > manufactures. There are admins on both sides of the anti-MS fence > that I communicate with that would agree with this conclusion. > > > > On 10/3/05, Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Steve Friedl wrote: > > > > > The majority of BSODs are caused by buggy third-party drivers and malware > > > (rootkits, etc.) Is that part of "Microsoft's monopolistic abuse"? > > > > Does any kind of evidence (apart from PR-flack-based spin) exist for this > > conclusion? > > > > Can you point me to it? > > > > Sincerely, > > Bruce Ediger > > _______________________________________________ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > -- > ME2 <http://www.santeriasys.net/> >
-- ME2 <http://www.santeriasys.net/> _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
