Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Bug Operating Systems Software Windows

The Story Behind a Windows Security Patch Recall 135

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the trial-and-human-error dept.
bheer writes "Raymond Chen's blog has always been popular with Win32 developers and those interested in the odd bits of history that contribute to Windows' quirks. In a recent post, he talks about how an error he committed led to the recall of a Windows security patch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Story Behind a Windows Security Patch Recall

Comments Filter:
  • by misleb (129952) on Friday May 04, 2007 @04:47PM (#18994649)
    Heck why not just go all the way an cut them loose?
  • by Jadware (1081293) on Friday May 04, 2007 @04:53PM (#18994781)
    Raymond Chen would be iFired, or at least told to iRTFM.
  • by snowgirl (978879) on Friday May 04, 2007 @05:03PM (#18994963) Journal
    Your sig: Sheep, Sheepdog, or Wolf: Choose.

    I choose moof []!
  • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Friday May 04, 2007 @05:14PM (#18995147)
    That, or he would've been iGiven some iBackdated stock
  • by Quantam (870027) on Friday May 04, 2007 @06:28PM (#18996099) Homepage
    Guess what? If one shell extension can cause the problem, then another shell extension can likely cause the same problem. He never explains why that would not be true, so there is no reason to assume that it would not be true. Generally speaking, there's more than one way to write a program that does the same thing, and there's more than one way to arrive at the same error condition.

    Thank you for making one of the most obvious (and thus pointless) statements of the century (did you know that things fall to the ground when you drop them? I'm completely serious) Yes, you are absolutely correct. In any relatively deterministic system, doing something bad in a predictable way will cause the same failure, predictably. Obviously, as this is deterministic, who is doing said bad thing in said predictable way is irrelevant; thus, multiple things may do the same bad thing with the same bad outcome. The blindingly obvious question this raises is exactly how many things do this. Whether 1 or 2 (or even 10) pieces of hardware do this makes little different if there's 5,000,000 pieces of hardware to test, and you only have the manpower to test 5,000 of them. Would you call testing a patch with merely 5,000 pieces of hardware horribly negligent? If so, I suggest you go work for them, and demonstrate that it's possible to test all 5,000,000 pieces in one month (several times, actually, as there are several patches to check).

    There is even a comment which raises a more detailed question about the explanation, which has not yet been answered.

    That poster is correct in his last paragraph (and the preceding paragraph, which indicated the problem): it was overlooked because, if it was going to break in this patch, it would have been breaking before this patch, as well; only the timing would have changed. Do you check every morning when you get up to make sure the sky is still blue and the grass is still green (I can smell the jokes coming already)? There are a million ways to do things that MSDN tells you specifically to never ever ever do; do you expect MS to check third-party code for every single one of them?

    On one last personal note: Don't try to out-asshole me. You will fail. I'm not exactly proud of that, but you need to pull your head out of your ass before you come after me.

    I am hurt that you give me so little credit. I would never attempt to challenge you at something I am so totally and obviously outclassed in. I would be much more concerned if you put me on your friends list.
  • Yeah, trying to fix a broken registry is SOOO much easier.
  • by jZnat (793348) * on Saturday May 05, 2007 @02:43PM (#19003403) Homepage Journal
    You see, it's this sort of advice that is preventing the year of Windows on the desktop. Once you say, "open a command line", you've failed as an operating system. ;p

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.