Microsoft to Patch Problem Patch 156
slowroller writes to mention an eWeek article about a new patch to fix issues raised in their most recent release. From the article: "The company's plan is to target the rerelease only to Windows users who are affected. In a blog entry, Toulouse said the company's patch deployment technologies will have "detection logic" built into them to only offer the revised update to customers who don't have MS06-015 or are having the problem. The glitches, which Microsoft claims affect only a tiny fraction of the 120 million installations of the patch, stem from a new binary called VERCLSID.EXE that validates shell extensions before they are instantiated by the Windows Shell or Windows Explorer. On systems running Hewlett-Packard's Share-to-Web software, Sunbelt's Kerio Personal Firewall and some NVIDIA Drivers, users complained that the new binary stopped responding."
Millions of different system configurations. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Millions of different system configurations. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh - "tiny" fraction could still be "lots" (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is not a popular opinion here, but MSFT really does have a tough job, if you are objective about it, from an engineering point of view.
Re:Millions of different system configurations. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can, will, and had better do both:
- Release patches quickly
- Release patches with adequate testing
If they don't, they should be punished.
Re:Heh - "tiny" fraction could still be "lots" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear here!
I agree 100%!
As a software engineer of a rapidly growing company, it's amazing to me how much higher the standard of testing and accountability has to be with each major product release. Our company has been growing exponentially, at least 2x annually. Just a year or two ago, a bug meant a few phone calls, but in the last year or so, it's gotten to where a single bug (even a minor one) can easily swamp our telephones!
The first release was like, a proof of concept more than not. It wasn't even feature complete at release - we relied on an update mechanism built in at the last minute to cover for the fact that not all the features were completed!
Not many phone calls from that issue, I might add. But, in the last year or two, a single bug affecting a relatively small percentage of our users still loads us down with dozens of issues ticketed in a single morning.
Ugh!
Since our deliverable is web-based, fixing a bug is still very fast, but we're working furiously to improve quality control testing prior to release. I can only imagine what a company with the market size of Microsoft has to deal with - when the vast majority of computing resources are in your hands, the task of dealing with bugs and updates must be simply gargantuan.
How do they do it with such a shoddy codebase?
Re:Heh - "tiny" fraction could still be "lots" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:URL For Patch (Score:3, Insightful)
GRRR they didn't finish testing this patch, either! Office looks funny and none of my games work!
Re:Millions of different system configurations. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Affected (Score:5, Insightful)
The HP 'drivers' for my all-in-one machine come in at 180 megabytes! The interface is sheer bloat, it installs a handful of totally unnecessary (Disabling them has little consequence) services and startup processes, and there is still no x64 driver!
The HP sponsored linux drivers (HPLIP) work well on Linux 64, and it is nice to see Linux up on Windows for once in terms of hardware support.
That felt good.
Re:Apple users are nervous about updates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Millions of different system configurations. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Release patches quickly
- Release patches with adequate testing
You do realise that some things simply take a certain amount of time and no matter how much money or how many people you throw at the problem they will not get done any quicker, don't you?
You also realise that the reason that MS release patches on a monthly schedule is that the corporate IT world demanded it, don't you?
What you are asking for, in effet, is that they a) solve problems in a certain amount of time regardless of how long it actually requires, b) do so without affecting quality and c) go against the express wishes of a large proportion of their customers.
Now, I'm not saying that they're perfect by any means, and I accept that I'm probably lucky in that I've used half a dozen machines over the last few years running Windows 2k and XP and have suffered no problems that weren't entirely hardware related, but from where I'm sat they're doing an ok job.
Re:Apple users are nervous about updates (Score:2, Insightful)
Mac users should be much more wary of updates for that reason alone.
Apple also is a lot less interested in enterprise customers than Microsoft. Enterprise customers are the ones that demand extensive testing and will seriously crack the shits if some funny legacy application that is absolutely critical for their business fails to run following an update.
Apple isn't too fussed by backwards compatability either. So certainly an OS upgrade (10.3 -> 10.4) is expected to break things on OS X. Pre-Vista Microsoft pretty much guaranteed that if it worked on the old version it would work on the new version of Windows.
Re:Millions of different system configurations. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realise that some things simply take a certain amount of time and no matter how much money or how many people you throw at the problem they will not get done any quicker, don't you?
If only people would realize that, especially managers. "Ohh so you need x hours to do that? Well I'll just go call this helper for y hours, then you only need x-y hours, so we'll ship on friday"... Glad I'm not doing that anymore. Incidently, we did have a few issues with the patch, but what it revealed for us isn't that there might be a problem with MS patches, but that theres a big problem with testing at our facility before rolling out patches.
MS might screw up, but it's our job to make sure that what they give us works before we roll it out.
Re:Heh - "tiny" fraction could still be "lots" (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen the codebase, but from using the Win32 API a bit, I noticed the following:
Anyway, those are my observations... hopefully things are better in