All EVE players read here - VERY IMPORTANT

[After_8]

You're probably aware of this already, but in case you missed it, go read this page: http://eve-online.com/news/newsOfEve.asp?newsID=500

Summary is that somebody stuck a \ in the wrong place in the patcher scripts which caused the patcher to accidentally delete c:\boot.ini. If you're running XP, this renders the PC unable to reboot. The link details how to fix it.

[Feek]

At least it does if you're using XP and have Eve installed on your C drive.

Vista, and users with it on different drives are unaffected.

Luckily, I come under the second camp on both instances :)

[Dymetrie]

At least it does if you're using XP and have Eve installed on your C drive.

Vista, and users with it on different drives are unaffected.

Luckily, I come under the second camp on both instances :)

I resemble this statement :)

[After_8]

I'm on Vista too, so I was able to safely sit back and laugh at all the people who didn't believe the warnings. Makes a nice change to see the anti-Vista camp squirm :)

[Daz]

Whoever wrote that patcher needs a kicking :|

[Davey_Pitch]

Indeed. I'd like to know how a game patch, almost certainly designed to interact with the files in the program install location, can delete something from the root of C:, even with an incorrect / in the script. Poor programming methinks.

[Feek]

Indeed. I'd like to know how a game patch, almost certainly designed to interact with the files in the program install location, can delete something from the root of C:, even with an incorrect / in the script. Poor programming methinks.

It's the rogue \ that does it

command in the installer

"delete \boot.ini"

instead of "delete %applicationinstallpath%\boot.ini"

QA testing was probably done with the client not installed on the C drive, or on a box using Vista.

At least they've pulled the patch quickly as soon as it was realised. The full installer doesn't have that problem.

[Daz]

QA testing was probably done with the client not installed on the C drive, or on a box using Vista.
Then their QA is dire and the guy who keeps tabs on that should be shot as well :p

It's strange though, I mean, to name a file identical to a system one is just ridiculous. It almost sounds like they were screwing around with each other on day in the office and some pleb published some piss about code without checking.

Anyway, I've spent today dealing with the stupidity of idiots, so I'm not in the most tolerable mood for things like this :p:D

[Mark]

Meh. One of our products reference counted user32.dll (or similar) in the installer. God alone knows why, but it did. I'm sure you can guess what happened when the software got uninstalled. ;D

Luckily muggins here ended up on the wrong end of it and worked out what we'd broke before it got as far as a real customer. :)

[Del Lardo]

QA testing was probably done with the client not installed on the C drive, or on a box using Vista.

As a former software test engineer that reeks of piss poor testing.

[Mark]

No, it reeks of not including that particular scenario in the testplan. Let's not go bashing the QA people here. Installation testing is oft neglected throughout the entire industry - people assume they're testing the software and forget about the ancillory bits like install/uninstall/upgrade testing. Looks like they did that, and got bitten. I've done that too, and got bitten. Fortunately in my case it only stuffed up our software and not the entire system.

[Del Lardo]

Sorry but IMO not testing the installation process on a computer running XP (an OS that a huge %age of their customers use) on the default disk is complacent. You cannot afford to make assumptions in software testing.

[Mark]

You cannot afford to make assumptions in software testing.
Unless someone's going to die if the system goes wrong (transportation/health/military) then that's pretty much nonsense I'm afraid, and even in the death scenario I'd argue it's still nonsense. I'm more likely to win the lottery twice on the same day than I am to see a game, of all things, that can justifiably claim 100% testing.

[Del Lardo]

Sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you are releasing software that is going to be installed on that many computers you simply cannot assume that something is going to work just because it's been fine for the last 63 releases.

Installing software on a XP machine on the C drive should be a standard test case.

[Mark]

Ah, now that's different from a general 'cannot make assumptions'. A specific assumption that a user will not install something to C: drive on Windows XP would be ridiculous, but was it really an assumption, or was it simply overlooked in the rush to get a project out the door (and I'll wager we've all done that at least once).

PS - I test our software installing to C: and D: drives. :)

[Dymetrie]

I believe I should get involved and say that CCP are actually a damn good company and run eve bloody well.

This is a single mistake (which I agree, should never have occured, but did) but unfortunately will be the one which is likely to be most talked about rather than the hundreds of fantastic things they've implemented in the last four+ years with EVE.

I for one still hold them in high regard (well, running Vista, game directory on a different drive and due to social life haven't installed the patch yet :p) and am soooooooooo glad they're not SOE who managed to screw up the other MMO which I used to play....

[After_8]

To be fair, CCP can only accept so much blame for this. The fact that Windows actually allows any non-system program to touch boot.ini in the first place is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of issue shouldn't even be possible to produce.

[Garp]

http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=526

Interesting post situation analysis. I found this particularly interesting, given the level of fuss this patch accrued:

Why didn't you catch this during testing? It's partly the reason above, not enough time to test the graphics content upgrade thoroughly to notice it removed this file. We also discovered that we didn't have enough variation in our hardware and operating system setups since Windows will recover if it's on the first partition of the boot drive. It seems that most computers at CCP are set up this way and this was my personal experience in the evening of the release. I upgraded my Revelations 2.3 client to Trinity Classic and from there to Trinity Premium. I logged onto Tranquility, then logged directly out again and rebooted my computer without any visible problems. Needless to say, we have already revised our testing procedures to make sure this does not happen again.

So in theory the number of people negatively affected would have been small. Most folks do install windows onto their primary partition.

[Feek]

Have you seen the patch notes for Trinity 1.0.1?

Please note: No Windows System files were harmed during the creation or deployment of this patch.

[After_8]

I've later learned that this issue also does not affect people who have installed XP SP2. Which, considering how long SP2 has been out and how important it is, as far as I'm concerned means that anybody who was vulnerable to it had it coming.

[Dymetrie]

Something new for me to do... (http://myeve.eve-online.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf)

And what the hey...If I do good then I get to go to Iceland :D

[Lomster]

Something new for me to do... (http://myeve.eve-online.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf)

And what the hey...If I do good then I get to go to Iceland :D

Get me 10 choc ices and a bag of oven chips.

Oh and a prawn ring.

(/Faysh)

[Dymetrie]

*loves tabloid journalism* (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=186608&site=pcg)

Click siggy link for the real story ;)

[Mark]

Dymetrie: claims to "care for bears", but the scar across his eyebrow and deep melancholy in his eyes suggests he plans to dispassionately murder them all.
LOL. You appear to have been rumbled. ;D ;D :p

[Feek]

I think it's quite funny how even the very first line has got it wrong!