Message-ID: <343561e904092410366eebb64d@mail.gmail.com>
From: abaker at gmail.com (ASB)
Subject: Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where issues like this relate to the OS is in the fact that the OS
itself shouldn't be brought down by a poorly designed app.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And where in that article did you read that the OS was brought down by
a poorly designed app?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Was it MS Windows that actually held the code that brought the system down?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The article was pretty clear:

---
The servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to
prevent a data overload, a union official told the LA Times.
---

...and...

---
To avoid this automatic shutdown, technicians are required to restart
the system manually every 30 days. An improperly trained employee
failed to reset the system, leading it to shut down without warning,
the official said. Backup systems failed because of a software
failure, according to a report in The New York Times.
---

How you managed to read "OS failure" into this is rather astounding...


-ASB

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:15:12 -0400, Barry Fitzgerald
<bkfsec@....lonestar.org> wrote:
> joe wrote:
> 
> >Nod. Some knucklehead used GetTickCount or clock() for their app and had no
> >clue about datatypes and overflows and range of possible values and some
> >people go off on Windows.
> >
> >I was helping someone in the public newsgroups with a similar issue.
> >"Experienced" 10 year c coder who didn't understand why a long value would
> >go negative and start counting down... He could have been coding for Windows
> >or anything else. Unfortunately he chose Windows so his app contributes to
> >people thinking Windows doesn't work.
> >
> >The state of programming right now is like the state of the roads in
> >Michigan. Mostly in disrepair and everyone blaming the weather instead of
> >poor road building skills. In the meanwhile the Dept of Transpotation keeps
> >hiring inexperienced road workers for some poor salary and using lowest
> >bidder to build the roads and expecting them to miraculously get better.
> >
> >
> >
> Where issues like this relate to the OS is in the fact that the OS
> itself shouldn't be brought down by a poorly designed app.
> 
> Of course, you can shoot yourself in the foot in any OS, but an overflow
> in a local app should never take down the kernel.  Unfortunately, memory
> management in MS Windows (though it's gotten better over time) is still
> not up to par and that is what causes a number of these issues.  Not to
> mention poor system architecture and design on the part of MS.
> 
> Was it MS Windows that actually held the code that brought the system down?
> 
> Well, that depends on how far down you want to drill and where you place
> the burden of OS stability.  If you place it on the OS, then Windows is
> fair game.  If you place the burden of OS stability on the app, then
> you're foolish and don't understand OS design concepts.  :)  (said in
> jest, but then, so is most truth)
> 
> The article doesn't make the situation entirely clear.  Did the app
> intentionally restart the system and foul it?  Did the restart occur
> because the app crashed?  I'm skeptical because technical details like
> this are usually confused, mislabeled, or misreported... even
> (especially?) in tech rags.  So, who holds the burden in this case
> depends on the answers to the questions above.
> 
>                -Barry
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists