From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cygwin-talk-return-4520-listarch-cygwin-talk=sources.redhat.com@cygwin.com>
Received: (qmail 12373 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2008 23:25:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 12363 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2008 23:25:09 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:24:34 +0000
Received: from ALBATROSS ([192.168.1.150]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:24:32 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'well, zero is less isn't it?'" <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
References: <loom.20080904T183156-413@post.gmane.org> <48C0316C.F9E434A9@dessent.net> <00fc01c90f39$f4006970$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>  <loom.20080910T172329-77@post.gmane.org> <007101c9136b$a62b3e10$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>  <loom.20080910T174541-80@post.gmane.org> <007c01c91372$1c48c3a0$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <5E25AF06EFB9EA4A87C19BC98F5C8753016D87EE@core-email.int.ascribe.com> <gabfo8$rrf$1@ger.gmane.org> <014a01c9142c$eb129570$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <gabi99$5qg$1@ger.gmane.org> <48C97CC9.5020602@etr-usa.com>
Subject: RE: the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:25:00 -0000
Message-ID: <017401c91465$8b64eef0$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <48C97CC9.5020602@etr-usa.com>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin-talk.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-talk-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com>, <http://cygwin.com/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com
Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
X-SW-Source: 2008-q3/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2

Warren Young wrote on 11 September 2008 21:17:

> 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.  

  You make it sound as if win95 actually /did/ have a one in ten million
chance of staying up for fortynine days!  I can assure you, it was a lot less
than that ...  :)

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....