the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x
Warren Young
warren@etr-usa.com
Thu Sep 11 20:18:00 GMT 2008
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641
>
> Oy, hadn't run across that before :-).
The fact that the problem wasn't fixed until 2000 or so made this more
than just an embarrassment for Microsoft. It was an inflection point.
What you had was a bug that was absolutely deterministic, which affected
hundreds of millions of machines over many years. Multiply it out and
you come to something like 100 billion times the bug could have
happened. Sounds like a programmer's dream, right? A bug you can count
on to happen that reliably with such a huge installed base....yet it
took ~5 years to diagnose and fix.
For such a bug to last so long, you're looking for probability of
discovery down around 1 in 10 million. It takes a lot of explaining to
get from 1e11 to 1e-7. I tried. The "good reasons" got me down to
about 1e2. Maybe you can get down to 1e0. You're still left with so
many zeroes as to constitute objective evidence that Win9x boxes
experience...erm, unscheduled restarts...*a lot*.
To this point, you had all kinds of anecdotal evidence of Win9x's
instability. The arguments raged on, as those based only on anecdotal
evidence will. This incident provided objective proof of the sort you
don't see ignored outside of politics and religion.
More information about the Cygwin-talk
mailing list