Re: kernel structures 2.0.29->2.0.30

Mike Jagdis (
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:14:40 +0100 (GMT/BST)

On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Chel van Gennip wrote:

> To convince some software vendors I think specific versions should be certified as
> "rock solid".

Commercial software vendors don't even do this. If you check your
licenses you'll almost certainly find an explicit statement that
you should not expect the product to do *anything*. If you are
willing to pay good money just for a guarantee that the media will
be readable why do you expect more for free?

Yes, MS release broken products (most of their service pack
release notes mention "memory corruption fixes" even). Yes, SCO
release broken products (OS 5.0.0 requires a base patch, a
networking patch and, possibly, another networking patch, os449a,
but that is known to introduce some panic attacks too).

Now, if you really want perfection and have *lots* of money
we can discuss what sort of guarantee you can buy - and what sort
of limit on liability I write in. Got to protect the profit :-).


|  Mike Jagdis                  |  Internet:   |
|  Roan Technology Ltd.         |                                      |
|  54A Peach Street, Wokingham  |  Telephone:  +44 118 989 0403        |
|  RG40 1XG, ENGLAND            |  Fax:        +44 118 989 1195        |