RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

["Exibar" <exibar@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Exactly.  Some idiot decided to program the entire system to shut down after
49 days.  What an idiot, why not just setup a maintenance program to perform
a scheduled re-boot of the system instead of having an automated proecess
shut down the system and then have to schedule a work around for this by
scheduling a manual boot every 30 days (which someone forgot).

  This whole thing wasn't Windows' fault, but an idiot
programmer/manager/whatever fault.

  Exibar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASB [mailto:abaker@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:56 AM
> To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windoze almost managed to 200x
> repeat 9/11
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Next time, please read the thread in context.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The context of the thread is that an application issue is being
> incorrectly interpreted as an OS issue.
>
>
> -ASB
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:43:53 -0400, Barry Fitzgerald
> <bkfsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ASB wrote:
> >
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >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?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I didn't... I was reponding to a point that was made about applications
> > being reponsible for system failures.
> >
> > >
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >>Was it MS Windows that actually held the code that brought
> the system down?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >The article was pretty clear:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >How you managed to read "OS failure" into this is rather astounding...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > How you manage to get up in the morning is rather astounding.
> >
> > Next time, please read the thread in context.
> >
> > Also, if you think that that's a detailed assessment of the problem,
> > you're not too bright.
> >
> > So try and think a little harder next time, and not be so abbrassive.
> > You may be having a bad day (most likely due to your poor attitude) but
> > don't take your own misunderstanding out on others, mmkay?
> >
> >             -Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html