Invisible wrote:
>>
>> And delivered years later ;). If they had written it in Haskell, 
>> they'd actually had to rewrite it from the scratch (I'm pretty sure 
>> they've reused lots of code from earlier versions). Bye-bye for old 
>> bugs, yes. Welcome for new bugs, also yes.
> 
> Well, I'm told they rewrote a lot of it already, but yeah, you're 
> probably right...
> 

Surely yes, lots and lots of new code (hence lots and lots of new 
bugs;). But as far as I understand economic world of programming, it can 
easily be cheaper to loan (working) code from earlier version than 
rewrite from scratch (eg. some tiny applications that don't actually 
change - that would mean rewriting the *same* code again, which is 
simply stupid).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

> Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> And delivered years later ;). If they had written it in Haskell, 
>>> they'd actually had to rewrite it from the scratch (I'm pretty sure 
>>> they've reused lots of code from earlier versions). Bye-bye for old 
>>> bugs, yes. Welcome for new bugs, also yes.
>>
>> Well, I'm told they rewrote a lot of it already, but yeah, you're 
>> probably right...
>>
> 
> Surely yes, lots and lots of new code (hence lots and lots of new 
> bugs;).

They re-wrote the network stack, and on initial betas, apparently they 
had re-introduced bugs that had been fixed in Win95. (like a ping packet 
forged to look like it came *from* 127.0.0.1 caused a kernel-mode 
infinite loop, locking up the system badly)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
> They re-wrote the network stack, and on initial betas, apparently they 
> had re-introduced bugs that had been fixed in Win95. (like a ping packet 
> forged to look like it came *from* 127.0.0.1 caused a kernel-mode 
> infinite loop, locking up the system badly)

History repeats itself :).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> They re-wrote the network stack, and on initial betas, apparently they 
>> had re-introduced bugs that had been fixed in Win95. (like a ping 
>> packet forged to look like it came *from* 127.0.0.1 caused a 
>> kernel-mode infinite loop, locking up the system badly)
> 
> History repeats itself :).

Or "Micro$oft still hasn't learned how to write a network stack properly 
even after 10 years", whichever you prefer...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>   Half the developers working on Haskell are Micro$oft employees.
> 
> Who's the other one working for then? ;-)

Some obscure medical lab in the UK, I heard...

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message