EVE Search - CCP makes it into the top 5....

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP makes it into the top 5....

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
FireFoxx80 E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.06.17 11:59:00 - [1] ...IT administration goofs... Originally by: The developers used a file named "boot.ini" as the configuration file for the update -- and an unfortunate extra backslash in the installer for the update. As a result, the installer overwrote the boot.ini file in the root of the C: drive that Windows uses to start up the computer, and then deleted itself after the patch was applied. When some players rebooted, Windows reported an error. A few PCs needed a Windows CD to affect repairs. What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
Ethidium Bromide ZEALOT WARRIORS AGAINST TERRORISTS Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.17 12:03:00 - [2] boot.ini Originally by: George Petsch Nochricht: Dei schwarer StroinlSser trifftn Karli[Baatzis] und ruiniert erm so richtig de Dosn, 1343.7 schhodn, oida.
Declan Intaki	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:02:00 - [3] Mmmyeah....... I almost quit the game over this one. Glad I didn't now, but Jesus H Christ that was annoying
Lilan Kahn The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:15:00 - [4] the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? "Bringing Content to you 1 round of ammo at a time"
Kirra Liu H O R I Z O N	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? This. I mean c'mon, CCP screwed up royally when they messed with the boot.ini file, however micro****e should not really have xp vuneralble by just deleting a simple text file.
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:18:00 - [6] Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? Because they all do… Have you looked in your /etc/ folder recently?
Tamia Clant New Dawn Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:18:00 - [7] Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? The same reason a game patch would delete it. Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
Mazaron	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:18:00 - [8] Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? Got anything better to recommend?
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:19:00 - [9] I'm not sure that should be in the top 5 really...the boot.ini thing was pretty bad but it only affected somewhere around 5% of users. That being said, I can't think of a worse one off the top of my head... ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
The Wounded Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:25:00 - [10] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? Because they all doà Have you looked in your /etc/ folder recently? Yeah cant be overwritten if I apply a patch as a user. 644 FTW
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:28:00 - [11] Edited by: Tippia on 17/06/2008 13:29:19 Originally by: The Wounded Yeah cant be overwritten if I apply a patch as a user. 644 FTW Different matter – the OS can still be killed dead by messing with the right text file. A better question would have been "why would an OS not protect the files it relies on?" …oh and a user could still kill it – you just have to trick him into give the patcher the sudo password
The Wounded Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:31:00 - [12] True but if you installed it as a user there should eb a bell ringin if it ask for root pass, besides you can even protect against that. And yeah such files should be protected by the OS
Kobushi OCForums	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:34:00 - [13] Edited by: Kobushi on 17/06/2008 13:35:00 it's making it appear bigger then it actually was, the boot.ini eater was only available for what 3-4 hours, and only affected xp users with a very not up to date OS... Hell it ate mine (first thing I see at boot up after the Bios is "Can not find Boot.ini, loading boot.ini" and My PC as never worked better then with a still missing boot.ini and I do believe MS made this file irrelevant the previous sept/oct. So unless you are running a bootlegged xp OS there was no reason not to have a 3 month old OS patch...
LetsDoThis	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:40:00 - [14] This is not a windows flaw. There are many potential reasons to be able to delete or modify boot.ini There is even good reason to not require a confirmation window to popup. The fault is CCP's alone. Don't delete boot.ini unless you have a reason to.
Ethidium Bromide ZEALOT WARRIORS AGAINST TERRORISTS Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:43:00 - [15] Originally by: LetsDoThis delete boot.ini unless you have a reason to. i think it's funny with your name Originally by: George Petsch Nochricht: Dei schwarer StroinlSser trifftn Karli[Baatzis] und ruiniert erm so richtig de Dosn, 1343.7 schhodn, oida.
Riho Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:44:00 - [16] i had a laugh when it happened... yes i got my boot.ini deleted also.. but i didnt care. as i reboot my PC 1 or 2 times a year :P i just noticed all of the threads and did a quick check :) ---------------------------------- Fighting for Minmatar o7 Yes... this is my main. Extreme Troll Slayer...
Larg Kellein Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:44:00 - [17] Woot, finally some professional recognition for CCP :p
Yuleth Gix	Posted - 2008.06.17 14:31:00 - [18] Originally by: LetsDoThis ....delete boot.ini... Posting out of context ftw \o/
Taedrin Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.06.17 14:35:00 - [19] Originally by: The Wounded Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? Because they all doà Have you looked in your /etc/ folder recently? Yeah cant be overwritten if I apply a patch as a user. 644 FTW This is why Linux is so much better than XP (don't know about Vista, as I haven't tried it yet). In Linux, you don't have to be root to do things! While in XP, in order to get anything done (like simply burning a CD), you have to be logged in as an Administrator! Sure, maybe with a metric crap ton of configuration, you can get a robust permissions system set up on Windows, but it shouldn't take that much effort to set up a secure OS.
Cyrus Doul	Posted - 2008.06.17 14:42:00 - [20] hehe. It would suck that my comp would be bricked for a bit if i got that, but wouldn't a computer that booted straight into eve be sweet? Think of the 3d web browser of greatness that would be. Just make sure to stay away from the stargates that have the special "Chris Hanson" stool shaped CONCORD battleships orbiting it like a hawk looking for prey.
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.17 14:50:00 - [21] Originally by: Taedrin Sure, maybe with a metric crap ton of configuration, you can get a robust permissions system set up on Windows, but it shouldn't take that much effort to set up a secure OS. To make matters worse, windows developers have never been forced to work within a limited-permission sandbox and have been able to assume that they can do pretty much as they please when it comes to where things are saved. As a result, even if you do manage to set up a limited account (which, tbh, isn't that hard once you get your head around how it works in WinNT), most programs will simply explode when they suddenly run across the "unexpected" error of not being allowed certain operation. <historical tangent> This has come back to haunt MS now that Vista is out: the whining and complaints about UAE popping up and interrupting all the time aren't really due to UAE being poorly implemented, but rather to programmers not understanding – or at least lacking the experience – how to make their programs work in a permissions-limited environment. In many ways, this is much the same as when we made the move from Win98 to Win2k, especially in regards to gaming: you could instantly spot which games were made by competent people since they would run better on 2k than on '98 (in spite of the whole "2k can't run games" rumor), whereas crap games would crash instantly (which is what gave rise to that same rumor). </historical tangent>
Nikita Alterana	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:07:00 - [22] Combat: CCP's Trinity Deployment perfectly strikes your boot.ini wrecking and rendering it unusable. __________________________________________________
Shionoya Risa The Xenodus Initiative. Overclockers Podpilot Services	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:15:00 - [23] Originally by: Nikita Alterana Combat: CCP's Trinity Deployment perfectly strikes your boot.ini wrecking and rendering it unusable. Sure, mine was unusable because it wasn't there... Didn't stop my PC from booting though. -----
Viqtoria Groping Hand Social Club	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:21:00 - [24] Originally by: Taedrin Originally by: The Wounded Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? Because they all doà Have you looked in your /etc/ folder recently? Yeah cant be overwritten if I apply a patch as a user. 644 FTW This is why Linux is so much better than XP (don't know about Vista, as I haven't tried it yet). In Linux, you don't have to be root to do things! While in XP, in order to get anything done (like simply burning a CD), you have to be logged in as an Administrator! Sure, maybe with a metric crap ton of configuration, you can get a robust permissions system set up on Windows, but it shouldn't take that much effort to set up a secure OS. people like you got me to install linux. or at least try, it was having none of my raid setup. So in order to even install my OS i had to do a CRAPTON of stuff that makes setting up permissions look like an msn conversation with an invalid. just to install my OS, and and then came using the thing, trying to install mp3 decoders, usenet programs, etc, etc.... And none of my games worked! 3 different 'flavours' of linux i tried, Mandriva, Suse and Xandros. btw in vista you just turn UAC off and nothing bothers you.
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:32:00 - [25] Originally by: Taedrin Originally by: The Wounded Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? Because they all doà Have you looked in your /etc/ folder recently? Yeah cant be overwritten if I apply a patch as a user. 644 FTW This is why Linux is so much better than XP (don't know about Vista, as I haven't tried it yet). In Linux, you don't have to be root to do things! While in XP, in order to get anything done (like simply burning a CD), you have to be logged in as an Administrator! Sure, maybe with a metric crap ton of configuration, you can get a robust permissions system set up on Windows, but it shouldn't take that much effort to set up a secure OS. ******s, you have to be root to install software globally (unless you have an oldschool setup with group "bin" etc.) and I'm pretty sure EVE for Linux requires root to install (if not run) as well. How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming*
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:38:00 - [26] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 17/06/2008 13:29:19 Originally by: The Wounded Yeah cant be overwritten if I apply a patch as a user. 644 FTW Different matter û the OS can still be killed dead by messing with the right text file. A better question would have been "why would an OS not protect the files it relies on?" àoh and a user could still kill it û you just have to trick him into give the patcher the sudo password Because if its locked how is an administrator going to edit it? You need admin privileges to install software and you also need admin privileges to edit that file. Every operating system has an equivalent to boot.ini (in Linux you might say grub.conf). It was a pretty bad blunder on CCP's part.
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:45:00 - [27] You would think that in regards to the boot.ini file that micro$oft would have some sort of failsafe in place. Something like "Warning, you are about to delete a file critical to your computers start up, proceed?" -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase: Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
Jenny Spitfire LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.06.17 15:58:00 - [28] Originally by: Lilan Kahn the real question is, why woud a os rely on a simepel text file ? This is usar eror and can happend anywere. Nobidy fault. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Go vote! Put voice for silent majority. LOVE PVP, HATE grief
The TX Earth Inc. Zeta Tau Epsilon	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:15:00 - [29] Originally by: Viqtoria i had to do a CRAPTON of stuff You heard this word here first. In a few years when people are saying it's another /b/tard thing, we'll all know the truth, the word CRAPTON was invented by Viqtoria in this thread. -------------------- [Signature] [/Signature]
Slickdrac JET FORCE	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:23:00 - [30] didn't read other pages of article Boot.ini is nothing, witness the awesomeness that was Myth II I suck at forums
Everyone Dies	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:39:00 - [31] CCP > Microsoft The problem is WINDOWS not EVE.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:00:00 - [32] Hey man, EVE is a cold, dark, harsh place. Even the software is cold, dark, and harsh. Everyone in EVE is out to get you, even the software. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Resamo	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:16:00 - [33] Originally by: Jacob Mei You would think that in regards to the boot.ini file that micro$oft would have some sort of failsafe in place. Something like "Warning, you are about to delete a file critical to your computers start up, proceed?" The amount of complaints in vista with the popups asking if you are sure you want to do something that may effect your computer. But as soon as something goes wrong and there was no popup people ask "why was i not warned this could mess up my system" Microsoft is in a damned if they do damned if they dont position about those stupid warnings and i dont envy them, the really problem is programing something that people will actually use because at the end of the day the users are what mess things up on there system then complain that you let them mess things up, but if you dont let them mess things up they complain that they are not allowed to mess things up. And this was just brutal on ccp's part how on earth does that get released, no test deployments?
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:18:00 - [34] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 17/06/2008 17:18:55 My boot.ini is now wearing body armor. --- Its dead, Jim.
Thorek Ironbrow Ironbrow Industries Co.	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:19:00 - [35] old But anyway, back to the point... I'm awesome :D
Princess Jodi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:21:00 - [36] I heard it DID get extensively tested - all on systems which had the operating system on the C: drive and all programs installed on the D: drive! While that may be the way some people 'prefer' to set up their systems, its not the way that ALL systems have historically been set up. So their tests worked just fine on the dual-partitioned drives: But if you had everything on C:, you were screwed. Moral: Don't let youngsters be the only ones who make IT decisions. Things that they take as common place might be in total contrast to the way things have historically worked. Experience >>>> Youth.
Digital Solaris	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:35:00 - [37] He is drumming on his little drum of self-importance too eager, and alittle too much. He also blows the whole thing out of context and I quote: "The boot.ini botch is inexcusable. Having been located on the root of the C: directory since Windows 3.1, it's not like it's a little-known file. In other words, keep your platform knowledge within a decade of the latest developments, and never name your files after anything that appears by default on the root of the hard drive in Windows." I can turn this the other way around, you'd think that a powerhouse such as Microsoft, with such firm grip on the market share, would foresee something like this at some point of Windows development that they had a little brainstorm and came up with something a little more innoative, bought, stolen or otherwise. But I reckon this is why Microsoft feels threatened by the open source community and Apple. ~No, you are not special. I insult everyone.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:43:00 - [38] Still running without the boot.ini Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Wynona Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:37:00 - [39] LOL, top 5 world recognition for a colossally stupid mistake. My experience with this company is we're not dealing with patient mature businessmen here. The boot.ini was a result of their youthful haste. This 'youthful haste' is rooted firmly in the senior game managers too, and it's gonna drive the final coffin nail if they don't trade it for maturity and wisdom. I think the boot.ini incident would never of happened if CCP employees weren't their own best customer. If CCP didn't allow their employees to anonymously play Eve against the player base, then overzealous pee-pee dances and temper tantrums wouldn't get in the way of getting the job done in a calm, well thought out professional manner. (*this item contains a hint)
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:53:00 - [40] Originally by: Beltantis Torrence Because if its locked how is an administrator going to edit it? You need admin privileges to install software and you also need admin privileges to edit that file. …except that you don't actually need admin privileges to install software, unless either a) the installer programmers are incompetent, or b) you're installing a system-wide service. Even Windows handles user-level installs just fine – once again, the problem lies with the third-party programmers who aren't clever enough to let their installers work on limited accounts.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.