On Fri 2009-07-03 08:41:13, tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > > So you know it causes XP to bluescreen, but can not reproduce that. So > > what? Someone, somewhere _will_ reproduce it. > > yes, like someone, somewhere will get data corruption in a TCP > connection because the checksum is quite weak and networking hardware > ain't perfect. That's why we have ethernet checksums. > Once the probabilties become small enough then it is normal to accept > imperfection in operating systems. If I could make it perfect I > but I haven't thought of a way to do that while being absolutely sure > of maintaining the full strength of the legal defence. It already _was_ perfect before you started patching it. > If you find a way to actually produce this problem in a way that is > realistic for Linux users then let me know. Otherwise I think it is > the best option we have, imperfect though it is. So, you know that particular option will cause someone's XP to bluescreen, and you still want it to default to "Y"? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
