Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Microsoft Recalls Small Business Server 237

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the another-day-another-delay dept.
dasButcher writes to tell us VarBusiness is reporting that hot on the heels of many other delays, Microsoft has recalled their Small Business Server 2003 R2. The operating system started shipping to OEMs, distributors, and systems builders in July but was immediately recalled after a recent audit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Recalls Small Business Server

Comments Filter:
  • by Maxmin (921568) on Monday August 21, 2006 @07:30AM (#15947519)
    I mean, it's only software, how dangerous could it have been?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      it's only software, how dangerous could it have been?

      Where should we start?... Umm, ok, let's see...
      Viruses;
      Worms;
      Breaking hardware by using software (like, stoppid CPU's fan);
      Other things...
      • Therac 25 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:17AM (#15947675)
        To hell with your case fans. Software can kill, ask anyone who lost a loved one to Therac-25. [wikipedia.org]
        • by Peet42 (904274) <Peet42@Ne[ ]ape.net ['tsc' in gap]> on Monday August 21, 2006 @09:12AM (#15947910)
          Does anyone else remember when Sinclair advertised their 4MHz Z-80 A5-sized ZX81 as "Powerful enough to run a nuclear power station"...? I wonder if anyone took them up on that?
          • by blackest_k (761565) on Monday August 21, 2006 @10:28AM (#15948375) Homepage Journal
            Ok you would be mad to try using a zx81 to run a nuclear power station but consider
            a PLC tends to have memory in the 1 - 4k range and racks full of IO cards. If I remember correctly the z80 cpu could address 64k of address's as I/O or memory.
            1 bit is all it takes to operate a valve or a motor or read a sensor.
            8-16 bits for an analog input or output.

            while the ad's seem far fetched in reality the PLC's actually being used will not be that far removed from a ZX81.

            for further reading try googling for words like wonderware allen bradley omron SCADA.
            simple PLC's run most of the worlds automated processes.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Robber Baron (112304)
              "Explosion imminent?"
              "Oh my God! The plant's going to explode!"
              "Wait, I know: (typing) vent gas."
              "Pressure too high?"
              "Tank must be shut down manually?"
              "Oh, stupid bird! I never should have put you in charge!"
              "Ohhh, who am I kidding? It's all my fault!"
              'I've got to call the plant and warn them!"
              (phone beeping - automated message)
              The fingers you have used to dial are too fat. To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm now.
              "Aaah!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kjart (941720)

      I mean, it's only software, how dangerous could it have been?

      Yeah, I guess the software used in airplane avionics isn't too important. Hopefully Boeing doesn't use SBS ;)

  • by dreamchaser (49529) on Monday August 21, 2006 @07:31AM (#15947523) Homepage Journal
    The article cites 'non-final code' that was found in the audit. At least they found the error before it went out to the public. It's a bit slim on details but it sounds like no end user organizations are using it yet. So, in a way kudos to MS for finding the problem and addressing it rather than just sitting on their hands and making users download even more patches to replace the 'non-final' code.
    • 'At least they found the error before it went out to the public .. sounds like no end user organizations are using it yet'

      "The operating system actually had begun shipping to manufacturing partners .. in July .. the estimated 3,600 units that had gone out the door so far"

      was: Re:At least they caught it
      • by dreamchaser (49529) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:08AM (#15947638) Homepage Journal
        Read carefully. 3600 units of SBS went out. None went to end users. They were still in the process of building systems around it.
        • by rs232 (849320) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:48AM (#15947799)
          sounds like no end user organizations are using it yet' - dreamchaser

          No it doesn't actually say *no* end users it says *most* and most does not equate to all. You should realize that most PR statements don't actually mean what the words mean.

          "it basically said that in the part you left out:" - kjart

          "None went to end users" - dreamchaser

          The actual words are:

          "Most of Microsoft's voluminous partner base did not have copies of SBS 2003 R2 in hand yet"

          In other words some of Microsoft's voluminous partner base did have it. And seeing its a PR statement out of Redmond we can assume the reality is a lot more than a few got copies got out.

          This fella seems to think he bought a new server that has the R2 edition on it.
          http://snipurl.com/v9i1 [snipurl.com]
          http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi ndows.server.active_directory/msg/f797472b226c029d ?dmode=source&hl=en [google.com]

          No one has still replied to my request for an explanation of what non-final core components mean. Is this the same as bugs?
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by NSIM (953498)
            > No one has still replied to my request for an explanation of >what non-final core components mean. Is this the same as bugs? Just a guess, but I would suspect that somewhere in the process of going from RC candidate to RTM somebody screwed up so that the final version passed by QA and the version that went to manufacturing were not the same. So probably means that it's a few builds short of what should have gone to manufacturing and reflects the product at a very late stage in the release process.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kjart (941720)

        Yeah, as he already said, it basically said that in the part you left out:

        ...and asked that OEMs, disties and systems builders return the estimated 3,600 units that had gone out the door so far.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by timeOday (582209)
      So, in a way kudos to MS for finding the problem and addressing it rather than just sitting on their hands and making users download even more patches to replace the 'non-final' code.
      In a way. But has anybody else noticed that Microsoft keeps raking in record multibillion dollar profits even though they haven't delivered anything significant for about 4 years? That's an eternity in the software biz. I think Microsoft occupies the sweetest niche in all of business.
    • by schon (31600)
      no end user organizations are using it yet

      And there (I think) is the bigger reason for the 'recall' than a bunch of software bugs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Pollardito (781263)
      maybe there was a hot coffee mode in the OS?
  • Why was it recalled? (Score:4, Informative)

    by HugePedlar (900427) on Monday August 21, 2006 @07:31AM (#15947525) Homepage
    For those of us who can't be bothered to RTFA:

    "This routine check of the initial software on the manufacturing line found that it contained portions of code deemed "non-final," according to Microsoft... Microsoft plans to swap in the 'final' code, then reissue Small Business Server 2003 R2 to its manufacturing partners,"
  • Non-final? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kaioshin (893295) on Monday August 21, 2006 @07:34AM (#15947531) Homepage
    Non-final, they say? Was it working properly, then?
  • Looks like WinFS got released as part of Small Biz Server... remember it was withdrawn from Vista, but was supposed to be packaged with SQL Server instead? My guess is that Small Biz Server will not have WinFS... customers will have to buy the separate SQL Servr most probably...
    • They apparently just forgot to update bits of code with the 'final' bits. They aren't removing any features and I highly doubt WinFS was included in the build.
    • by Ryan Amos (16972)
      SBS 2003 Premium edition does in fact include SQL server.
  • New way of shipping on time?

    1. Ship your non-ready product on the stipulated date.
    2. Tell your customers your product has not met your enormously high quality standards *giggles violently*.
    3. Use the time gained to make the product ready for shipping.
    4. If its not ready in time see # 1.
  • by BinaryCodedDecimal (646968) on Monday August 21, 2006 @07:54AM (#15947587)
    Slightly off-topic, but SBS is the reason I changed my job. I leave this place at the end of the month, thank god. I support several companies, 10 of which are using SBS. It has to be the best way of putting all of a company's eggs in one basket. It goes against everything that makes good sense about creating an available, stable network with some redundancy. If you go for the Premium edition and install everything, you'll find yourself running: - Exchange - SQL Server - ISA Server - IIS - File/Print services - DNS - DHCP - WINS All on the same box which is ALSO a domain controller for your network. If that box fails (some of our clients are cheap enough to have declined a RAID solution, against better advice), then that's it... the whole place is down the toilet until the box is rebuilt, and you'd better pray that the backups are good. It's a horrible, horrible way of running things, IMHO. I'll be glad to not have to support these boxes any more.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Damn formatting... here's how that should have looked:

      Slightly off-topic, but SBS is the reason I changed my job. I leave this place at the end of the month, thank god. I support several companies, 10 of which are using SBS.

      It has to be the best way of putting all of a company's eggs in one basket. It goes against everything that makes good sense about creating an available, stable network with some redundancy. If you go for the Premium edition and install everything, you'll find yourself running:

      -
      • You're definitely right about the "all eggs in one basket" risk, but what are the alternatives? A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server. There's a risk it may blow up and they'll lose those things, but for most of these places the alternative is not to have them in the first place.

        It's too expensive to buy multiple boxes and too complicated (for these places where the controller/accountant does double-duty as IT guy). Don't even get me started on Linux. I'm sure it's great if you happen to have an open source guru around, but it's just not a viable option for setting up a back-end where no one has any serious tech experience. Then of course they could always just be a Mac shop - if they want to double or triple their IT infrastructure costs (ha!). Not to mention the prevalence of MS Access in small business areas.

        I think you've got to hand it to MS. For about $400 you get all the software you need to run your business server, and it pretty much works out of the box. It's a whole lot better than not having anything, and as companies grow they will eventually build out the infrastructure and implement more redundancy. The "all eggs in one basket" isn't unique to just Windows SBS - it pretty much characterizes how small business works.

        -stormin
        • by jimicus (737525) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:41AM (#15947763)
          Linux can be done - I know of at least one company in the area that does it. They don't sell it as Linux; they sell it as an "entire IT system in a box for solicitors".

          You would have to streamline everything a lot though:

          - The customer isn't expected to do anything with the server. That's the support companies job (this isn't a million miles away from how a lot of these places work anyhow, so that's not a big deal).
          - Installation is nailed down to "insert CD, turn system on". All the configuration is pre-done by the support company, and every customer gets the same configuration. The customer doesn't do the install anyhow, the company sends someone to site if necessary, but the fact that everything is already nailed down means that you could get away with shaving a chimpanzee, putting them in a shirt and tie and sending them out to site.
          - Server hardware is specified (and usually supplied by) the support company.
          - Desktops aren't heavily locked down, but are locked down enough to minimise the likelihood of someone completely hosing their system. Combine that with Ghost, and running as much as possible from the server, and the desktop support overhead almost evaporates.

          You could easily charge £a few thousand per company per annum doing this - for the customer, it's a lot cheaper than paying a fulltime IT person when they probably only need a couple of man days a month, and gives them peace of mind.
          • by g1zmo (315166)
            you could get away with shaving a chimpanzee, putting them in a shirt and tie and sending them out to site.
            I've got several co-workers I can pass along with glowing recommendations if you're interested.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by bytesex (112972)
            Do they deliver a client CD with it ? I can imagine it now - a Linux live CD that simply takes control of the hard-disk of a machine that you put it in. Does apache, samba, postgres, CUPS, some MTA + some CGI inside apache to configure it all, shouts out some broadcast to see if we've bought two CDs accidentally and we're running more than one server with which we can synch + a client installer CD for windows with; firefox, activestate perl, some scheduled jobs for the client PCs to synch with the server;
        • by rbochan (827946)
          A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server.


          Sorry, but if your network needs that many services, you need a full-time IT staff or a damn fine, 24-7-365 (read EXPEN$IVE), service contract. This isn't a toaster or a typewriter or a copier we're talking about here.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by mdwstmusik (853733)

          "Don't even get me started on Linux. I'm sure it's great if you happen to have an open source guru around, but it's just not a viable option for setting up a back-end where no one has any serious tech experience."

          Oh Please!...I left my home town a little over 2 years ago to take a better job 6 hrs. away. When I did, I left 2 companies that I was doing support for. One in which I had set up their network with Linux servers, and the other that had already owned a Win '03 SBS when I started. In the time si

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by b0s0z0ku (752509)
          A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server. There's a risk it may blow up and they'll lose those things, but for most of these places the alternative is not to have them in the first place.

          Speaking as a freelance IT consultant, SBS servers, esp those which haven't been imaged initially for quick restoration after everything is working right and which have been running for a few years are a *fucking disast

          • by edmicman (830206)
            Good luck running SQL Server and/or .NET (Mono isn't ready yet) on that Debian setup :-)
            • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
              Good luck running SQL Server and/or .NET (Mono isn't ready yet) on that Debian setup

              I have a working SQL server running on my OBSD box - I can't imagine Debian being too different. .NET? I'm talking about small businesses here ( -b.

        • by 955301 (209856)

          That's a common misconception about multiple boxes costing more - buying one big toaster capable of handling all of the services isn't less expensive that buying 4 smaller ones. Plus you get the bonus of multiple buses for various disks.

          And linux is an option now that it has become more common - 1 week of training and an extra box for the admin to muck around on = $1k. Not a bad price to avoid crippling your company for three days when your backup/mail/ldap/intranet/calendar/wins/dns/web/ro uter/file server
      • by ericlondaits (32714) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:35AM (#15947734) Homepage
        I work at a small company. We don't have a full time sys admin (I do the chores myself, while also working as a programmer). We have a single Linux server that runs:
        - SMTP
        - POP
        - DNS
        - Apache (hosting mediawiki, mantis, dotproject, phpMyAdmin)
        - MySQL (for the mentioned web apps)
        - A SAMBA fileserver
        - DHCP

        The only thing that's not in that server is the firewall... which I kept in a different machine with no services running whatsoever, except those that handle our aDSL connection (pppoe, and sshd to connect from inside the LAN).

        Our setup is not great on redundancy... but we can afford a couple of days of downtime (we had to, once or twice over the years) more than we can afford doubling our setup. Our services are used by a small number of employees (six, actually) and none are critical.

        If Microsoft wants to pull us away from Linux they'd have to offer a Windows Server with all they usual servers (like those you mentioned), even if they're somewhat limited to prevent being used in a large corporation (max database size, max number of clients, etc.), priced appropiately for the use we'd give it. This product sounds like what we'd need... despite some companies misusing it for some reason.
        • Our setup is not great on redundancy... but we can afford a couple of days of downtime (we had to, once or twice over the years) more than we can afford doubling our setup. Our services are used by a small number of employees (six, actually) and none are critical.

          And this is the point.

          The question that management needs to answer is "Ok, lets test this. If I go unplug the One True server, right now, and leave it unplugged till end of business day, how will that impact our business?"

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by hmallett (531047)

        What amuses me is that SBS actually goes against many of Microsoft's own recommendations. Hence you see in product documentation things like:

        • You shouldn't run Exchange on a domain controller (except if using SBS)
        • You shouldn't run SQL on a domain controller (except if using SBS)
        • You shouldn't run ISA on a server running anything else (except if using SBS)

        The incident that really put me off using SBS though was:

        1. Use SBS for your small business
        2. Business grows
        3. Add additional domain controller for redundan
      • by inKubus (199753)
        That's why you buy a second box and use it as a backup. If you want to get really fancy, put half the primary servers on one, half on the other. For instance, you can put the primary smtp and secondary DNS on a different box than the primary DNS.

        And if you need to stay cheap, just get a POS HP desktop computer, put in a raid and use that as your backup. You don't have to have fancy server hardware as a backup.

    • I feel your pain (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SpooForBrains (771537) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:03AM (#15947623)
      I've recently been butting heads with SBS. Put in a samba server and a terminal server for a client to expand their business and bring some sanity to their IT setup. Their existing database app is hosted on a machine running Windows 2000 SBS, and I'm not allowed to move it. The server can't join their new domain - it's not even allowed to be part of a domain trust. The whole situation is hideous. I want to meet the person who recommended it and smack them round the face with the installation media.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by exKingZog (847868)
        A Samba server can, in fact, join the domain, as can other Windows servers. You cannot have sub-domains or trusts, although you can technically have a fail-over domain controller.
        • There was no way I was going to have the domain controlled by the flakey-ass SBS server. Domain Control is handled by the samba server, and the SBS machine CANNOT join that domain, nor can it enter into a trust with it (a deliberately coded restriction to SBS). You CAN bodge it to allow a trust, but the process is extremely complicated and violates Microsoft's licensing agreement (which is out of the question since part of the project was to bring their licensing into compliance).
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by b0bby (201198)
            I've been running SBS 2000 as an Exchange/file server for over 3 years now, and I have to say it's really not bad for a small business. It saved us about $5000 in licensing compared to W2K Server/Exchange, and it gets restarted for patches, that's it. Properly set up, on decent hardware, it's certainly not "flakey". I looked into all the open source alternatives at the time, and I still feel that SBS & Exchange was the right choice, even with the ridiculous 16gb db limit. In fact, I still don't feel tha
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by airxdata (996786)
      In all honesty, I can't fault SBS for the problems that you are experiencing here. The reason that SBS puts all their eggs in one basket is because, in the case of many small businesses, they can only afford that one basket. In your case, it looks like your problems stem from selling only half a basket for those eggs. I administer about 30 - 35 SBS boxes and haven't had a problem with them yet, but we also only do jobs where we can put this on a real server machine. SBS is actually an incredible product
      • Oh, the servers themselves are fine. Perfectly within MS's spec. I didn't supply them, by the way. I joined this company way after they were installed. My problem with SBS is stuff like you have described - running something like Remote Web Workplace on a server that is also a DC and an Exchange server? Not the best option for security, but perhaps that's just me. I don't feel happy supporting something that I wouldn't choose to use myself, so I'm getting outta here.
    • by kjart (941720)

      Though by no means an expert, it is my understanding that this is marketed to small businesses - you know, the first S in SBS. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that most 'small' businesses would have the IT budget to invest in 3-5 dedicated servers and, if they did, they might not be 'small' businesses anymore and are probably not in the target market.

      Perhaps you're speaking of businesses that do need multiple servers to fill their needs and can afford it. In cases like that I wouldn

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        Well, wikipedia defines a small business [wikipedia.org] as a business with less than 100 employees, although i've seen other definitions which state up to 500 employees. If you're actually running a real small business, say under 20 people, then I don't think you even have a need for a server such as this. If you're over 50 people, then it's probably well worth your money to buy a real server box, or 2 or 3, and hire a real IT guy/girl.
      • by chthon (580889) on Monday August 21, 2006 @09:15AM (#15947922) Homepage Journal

        How do you define a small business ?

        I think you can consider a business with only one person a small business, but where do you draw the line ? 5 people ? 10 people ? 20 people ?

        I ask, because I worked for a business of twenty people as the full-time IT staff, from 1997 to 1998.

        We had a WANG VS system, running our own custom software, based upon the PACE RDBMS.

        The support costs every year where about 25000EUR/year I think, but this computer system never failed.

        Peripherals, like line printers and terminals needed some replacements and service every year, but that was included in the support costs.

        The database consisted of about 350 tables for the operational work, 180 tables for financial reporting, and in addition to that the bookkeeping software.

        I could spend about 95% of my time programming and enhancing the system.

        Why do I tell all this ?

        Because I think that a system like SBS, with all its different features, cannot be optimally used by a company which does not have a good IT staff.

        What I mean is that from a certain size you should be able to also hire a good programmer, which is able to service the SBS and start making use of features of SBS specifically tailored to the business.

        If you cannot afford such a person, then SBS is no use to a business (except maybe in a bragging 'me too' way), because only the easiest and simplest features will be used.

      • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
        Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that most 'small' businesses would have the IT budget to invest in 3-5 dedicated servers and, if they did, they might not be 'small' businesses anymore and are probably not in the target market.

        Define "server", please. You can get Mac Minis for $350-500 a pop and use them as microservers running BSD or even vanilla OS X. One for files. Another for mail and VPN. A third for your DB. Set them to all back up to a NAS box daily. Total investment in

    • How on earth did you get modded up to 5? Oh yeah, this is Slashdot, where facts dont matter if you can bash Microsoft. You should quit, because apparently you dont know anything about SBS anyway, like the fact that you can install another Domain Controller, something any decent Admin should do immediately, and you can run most services on other hardware as well. Never cracked the manual, huh? Figures.

      • Geez, you completely missed the point of my post. And it would appear that you're a twat, too.

        The point is that SBS is *designed* (and indeed, shipped) to run all of this stuff on one box. That's the point of SBS. I came from a large infrastructure enviroment, where each server was dedicated to a task. I came to this place not so long ago, and saw how SBS is deployed in the real world... and it quite frankly sucks (but that might have something to do with my predecessors who installed the kit).

        Yes, of cours
      • Oh, and another thing, I'm not Microsoft-bashing - I'm SBS-bashing.

        I love *standard* Windows Server Systems. Like the ones I used to use, and the ones I'm going back to using.

        SBS is simply not a solution that fits in with my idea of a good infrastructure, and that seems to be mainly down to the fact that with SBS you're pitching to the bottom end of the market.
  • Are 'non-final core components' the same thing as buggy software?

    rs232's Recent Submissions - Title - Datestamp
    non-final core components - Thursday August 17, @07:45PM Rejected
    • Sounds more like someone made a build of SBS with one or more components from the dev branch instead of actual release versions.
      • by rs232 (849320)
        "Sounds more like someone made a build of SBS with one or more components from the dev branch instead of actual release versions"

        Do you have any evidence that such a thing happened. Shurly there can only one dev branch what ever that is and wouldn't a newer component have less bugs than an earlier version. And finally are 'non-final core components' the same thing as bugs.
        • "Sounds more like someone made a build of SBS with one or more components from the dev branch instead of actual release versions" Do you have any evidence that such a thing happened. Shurly there can only one dev branch what ever that is and wouldn't a newer component have less bugs than an earlier version. And finally are 'non-final core components' the same thing as bugs.

          No, I have no evidence and that's why I said "Sounds more like" :)

          About having less bugs, there's no natural law that says a newer

  • by Marbleless (640965) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:17AM (#15947676)
    Is this another recall, or is Slashdot about three weeks behind in the news?

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Recalls-D efective-Windows-Small-Business-Server-2003-R2-Pro duct-31365.shtml [softpedia.com]

    • by kjart (941720)

      Looks like the same recall to me. Since the article linked in the story mentions that this product originally shipped in July and the article you linked was dated July 29th it seems fairly unlikely that there were two.

  • humm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crashelite (882844) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:25AM (#15947703)
    no wonder why the server never worked. it was still in beta. i wonder what will happen to vista now?
  • Legal precedent? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vhogemann (797994)
    I know it wasn't sent to any actual customers, but...

    One can imagine, if given any serious fault or bug, Microsoft would be obligated to recall copies of their OS. Given that nowdays the OS is a crucial component for several business, can the justice force Microsoft to do it?

    After all, if they sell a defective product, that can cause severe harm to its consumers... I guess it's Microsof responsability to fix the damage. I don't know about the USA, but here at Brazil the EULA means nothing, since it can't de
    • by omega9 (138280)
      After all, if they sell a defective product, that can cause severe harm to its consumers... I guess it's Microsof(t's) responsability to fix the damage.

      I'm right there with you, but I can't seem to personaly look at the situation from every angle and be happy.

      Compare it to the auto industry for example: If I want to start a car company in my garage, I'm expected to provided a minimum level of safetly in my vehicles, regardless of whatever my feelings are on the subject. I can't produce deathtraps and then j
    • A lot of software, Microsoft, BSD, GPL, are all sold and used "as is". That is if it malfunctions, corrupts data, destroys the machine, causes cancer, or whatever, it isn't the author's fault. The author is not under any obligation to recoop costs of the damage or even fix the software. It is a pretty standard thing even for those that offer "high reliability/recovery".

      This has been something I've tried to point out quite a bit: If Microsoft claims the same level of "It is not my problem" then why is the
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday August 21, 2006 @09:28AM (#15947986)
    It's the year of our Lord 2006... Not 2003.

     
  • Recall? (Score:3, Funny)

    by asifyoucare (302582) on Monday August 21, 2006 @10:21AM (#15948324)
    That's odd. They couldn't seem to remember anything in the anotrust trial.

  • ...I recall SBS as having been bloated and a total POS. Is that what the article is referring to?
  • heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by LargoSensei (896728) on Monday August 21, 2006 @01:55PM (#15949883)
    they probably forgot to put the bugs in
  • by pe1chl (90186) on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:06PM (#15950359)
    The first issue went out with the defect documented in KB835734, for which a critical fix should have went out immediately!
    But nothing was done except providing a nearly nonvisible update, and this issue has caused nearly untamable mailstorms damaging customer reputation, ringing up traffic bills, and causing lots of grief. At least they demonstrated that not everyone can write a fetchmail clone.

    The typical customer for this package has no means at all to point out what was happening, and the system integrators usually only come by to look maybe the next day or so.
    (when they tried remote access over the same internet connection, it would be stuffed with traffic)

    At least now they recall it before it is too late.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...