RE: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2 (will it ever stop ?)

• Previous message: joe: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [Full-Disclosure]MS should re-write code with security in mind. lame bitching about xpsp2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: <allan.vanleeuwen@orangemail.nl>, <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:35:43 -0500

Functionlity issue is true, yet to add functionlity you must add more
lines of code. Beta programs are there to debug code therefore it is
understood to have less reliability.

Both stages are for debugging code but during beta they are adding fresh
code that hasn't been looked over for bugs. During RC, the fresh code
has been debugged a couple of times and therefore should be reliability.

Just my 2c

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com] On Behalf Of
allan.vanleeuwen@orangemail.nl
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:15 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2 (will it ever
stop ?)

Official standpoint from M$ on beta/RC naming:

Beta releases do not necessarilly contain same functionality as the
final release RC DOES contain same functionality as final release (no
more functionality changes are planned)

So it's not a question of reliability but functionality ...

Just my 2c

-----Original Message-----
From: Jos Osborne [mailto:Jos@meltemi.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:51 PM
To: Raymond; Nick Eoannidis
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2

>Release candidates are not beta's. That's why beta's are called beta's
>and releasecandidates releasecandidates.
>
>Eventhough, beta's should already have a certain reliability, since
>beta means: ready for a scheduled releasetime. That is even more so for

>releasecandidates because (yes:) they are releasecandidates.

So they'd be Gamma's?

Jos

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
===========================================================
De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is
alleen bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht
ontvangt, wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender
direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. Hoewel Orange
maatregelen heeft genomen om virussen in deze email of attachments te
voorkomen, dient u ook zelf na te gaan of virussen aanwezig zijn
aangezien Orange niet aansprakelijk is voor computervirussen die
veroorzaakt zijn door deze email..

The information contained in this message may be confidential and is
intended to be only for the addressee. Should you receive this message
unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail. Although Orange has taken steps to
ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, you do
need to verify the possibility of their existence as Orange can take no
responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way
of this email.
===========================================================

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

• Previous message: joe: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [Full-Disclosure]MS should re-write code with security in mind. lame bitching about xpsp2"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]