Inside The Development of Windows NT 707
mrpuffypants writes "Winsupersite has a 3 part series this month about the history and development of Windows NT all the way up through Windows Server 2003. The author goes fairly in-depth describing how Windows is developed, managed, and how all 50 million+ lines are compiled daily. Part One covers the history of NT from its early days at Microsoft and Part Two discusses how the deployment of the forthcoming server version of Windows is coordinated daily." *shiver*
hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, I think it was pointed out b/c it was the "war-room" and there was a penguin in it.
Sounds like typical Micro-FUD to me, bud (Score:4, Funny)
Bet they claim they had a penguin for a mascot all along and it was those hippies, foreigners and un-American freaks that stole their idea and made Tux the mascot for that mean ole' Linux.
How typical.
Re:hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it's tux, troll. (Score:5, Funny)
-fren
don't be happy (Score:5, Funny)
NT compile script (Score:5, Funny)
#!/bin/bash
Re:NT compile script (Score:5, Funny)
Re:NT compile script (Score:5, Funny)
#!/bin/bash
Line two:
#By compiling this program you agree to the following terms:
NT == VAX OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NT == VAX OS? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NT == VAX OS? (Score:5, Informative)
That would be VMS (some VAXen ran Ultrix, poor things). IBM and MS started a collaboration called OS/2, then later decided to part ways. Whatever MS's other motives were in the split, MS was staking its entire future on what was to IBM a toy project, so MS wasn't entirely enthusiastic about development at IBM speed. IBM kept the OS/2 name, MS hired Dave Cutler from DEC, Cutler dubbed the new fork WNT: that's the letters after VMS, and any expansion is entirely a backronym.
NT does include some of VMS's heritage, including strong async I/O support throughout. The DOS stuff is really a matter of emulating the interface -- a whole lot of work went into making drive letters and backslashes work everywhere, believe it or not. Not surprisingly, it tends to share more in common with OS/2, with the supervisor design and the object manager for starters.
Re:NT == VAX OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually MS stabbed IBM in the back by breaking the agreement (MS-W16 never to get 32 bits or a DOS virtual machine, OS/2 forever) without warning by launching MS-W3.1. This effectively killed OS/2 and made going from OS/2 3.0 NT to MS-WNT a no-brainer for MS.
You mean IBM quality, not speed. OS/2 development speed wasn't so bad; in fact, they decided to go for a command-line only, i286 version initially in order to ship early.
The real problem is that MS wanted to push forward the stupid MS Win16 API inherited from MS Windows 1.0 for the IBM-PC/XT, and IBM knew it was garbage. Also MS realised it could get more money by selling a product without any interoperability or standardisation, while IBM would have made it interoperable, documented and stable -- as they still do with the current IBM OS/2.
Re:NT == VAX OS? (Score:3, Informative)
So saying that NT is just VMS part II isn't really accurate, but the same guilty parties are involved. If you can find it, there was a book called _ShowStopper! The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT_ that does a pretty good job of chronicling the history of NT during its early days.
Know thy enemy, and all that.
Re:NT == VAX OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
One can't deny that NT was "based" [winntmag.com] on VMS.
In fact I recall reading somehere that MS was initially promoting NT as VMS on the desktop, or something along those lines.
Re:NT == VAX OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
And from what I remember about the hoopla, etc. Dave Cutler was fairly important in the first version of Windows NT.
But you know it shows just how little MS remembers the people who got it there in the first place!
NT & VMS (Score:5, Informative)
GameTab [gametab.com] - Game Reviews Database
VMS + 1 = WNT (Score:3, Interesting)
WinNT development cycle. (Score:5, Funny)
0) CVS checkout the latest net stuff from freebsd.org
1) Look at code and scratch head until "A-ha!"; enlightenment.
2) Merge code into Windows source
3) go to 0
Re:WinNT development cycle. (Score:5, Funny)
Dijkstra is rolling over in his grave...
Re:WinNT development cycle. (Score:5, Funny)
> 1) Look at code and scratch head until "A-ha!"; enlightenment.
> 2) Merge code into Windows source
> 3) go to 0
Damn! They use gotos in the development of windows?!
I know understand why it keeps crashing..
Re:WinNT development cycle. (Score:5, Interesting)
tanzarian:/$ grep -r ' goto '
1543
[----snip---]
that's from 2.4.19
Where's the profit? (Score:5, Funny)
4) ???
5) Profit!
(Not that Micro$oft needs anymore of that.)
There we have it (Score:5, Funny)
Either this means that the NT team were actually fairly clueless...or incredibly cocky. Either way, that seems like a pretty stupid thing to say.
Re:There we have it (Score:5, Insightful)
Did someone say cocky? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh dear. Poor Todd.
Re:There we have it (Score:3, Funny)
NT development (Score:3, Funny)
No... (Score:4, Funny)
Book on the same subject (Score:3, Redundant)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a big advertising piece about how NT is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sure, it has some entertaining facts, but I'm still not buying it.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Michael Landon Is My Cousin (Score:3, Interesting)
And while you're right that this article is a very happy view of NT, it's interesting from the standpoint of how a project grows and new versioning control systems are added to handle such growth. Sure, the articles are heavy on fluff and light on details - but Microsoft is closed source. They're not going to give you much more. I honestly am not sure why you're so upset with these articles.
Re:Michael Landon Is My Cousin (Score:3, Informative)
So did NT4, so does (seems to at least) 2K. When you start the installation, the message about loading it into still flashes on a screen.
Agree with you here 100% -- especially considering that at the beginning they spend quite some time praising modularity, etc. -- how easy it was to port to MIPS/x86/Alpha! Then they seem to have realized that maintaining all of that is not as easy as porting...
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
There was a simmering fight over whether OS/2 should be "Protected Mode Windows" or whether Windows should be "Presentation Manager for DOS". Since neither platform had that many users or developers at the time, it could have gone either way.
While they make this sound like a Gee Whiz revelation, but in fact Microsoft wanted Windows compatibility in OS/2 from the beginning and IBM wanted a unique API.
Since IBM wore the pants, they won the day originally. However this really bit them in the ass with the the subsequent popularity of Windows 3, because it was difficult to target OS/2, so software was either missing or dismissed as a poor Windows port.
Not that Win32 was a huge success in the early years either -- most software had to be run in the Win 3.1 emulation, and even MS themselves only belatedly produced a 32-bit version of Office and not much other software.
Alpha (Score:5, Interesting)
I see a lot of complaining in the article about how some architectures were not ready for NT on a timely basis (Intel i860, PowerPC), but I see no mention how they were so slow to bring NT to the Alpha. I recall that DEC actually ended up porting VMS to the Alpha because they were waiting on MS for their promised NT release. I'm a bit curious to hear from the developers about their perspective on that.
I've used both NT and VMS on the Alpha (as well as a Unix varient). NT is sooooo slow.
-Jennifer
Re:Alpha (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux runs fine on mine but from what I hear NT also runs on it fairly well. I guess we would have had to be running it when the UDB first came out to make any sort of educated descision on that.
Anyone have first-hand experience w/NT on the UDB?
Re:Alpha (Score:5, Informative)
You have to remember that NT4 was a 32 bit operating system, even on the Alpha. Therefor, you didn't really gain much by going to the Alpha, except for some nice speed boosts (it was definitely the fastest CPU on the market for years).
It was similar to running NT4 on a Pentium Pro 166 or 200.
The biggest problem I had was finding software. However, everyone's favorite telnet app, putty, comes compiled for NT4/Alpha.
The Register previously offered Windows 2000 for the Alpha, if you asked them for it. I never did, since my UDB was seriously underpowered (128MB RAM, 166 MHz).
Re:Alpha (Score:4, Insightful)
how they were so slow to bring NT to the Alpha.
Really.
I was surprised to learn from the article how the early NT was so non x86 centric, shifting from i860 to R3000, etc. They even boast of the portability to different hardware because they weren't tied down to the x86 instruction set so tightly as were the 16 bit Windows developers at the time.
So, why, then, did the Alpha port of NT take so long? And, from what I understand, it relied heavily upon the ability of the early Alpha chip to run in some FX!32 compatibility mode to emulate the x86 instruction set.
The Alpha/NT story just doesn't seem to add up to me. There's some missing dark matter.
It lost its independence with 4.0 (Score:5, Informative)
They moved the graphics subsystem into the kernel, and it ceased to be a microkernel. When pretty much everything lives in userland, portability is pretty easy. In fact, you can essentially write a new kernel (with the same external interfaces) for each architecture if need be. You also get neat features like being able to restart networking or the graphics system if they crash, without bringing down the system.
The problem that you have on i386 is that context switching is expensive (read: slow as a dog). On other platforms (sparc, ppc), it's not that big a deal.
Now, Windows doesn't look like a microkernel at all. And it's not at all portable, either. From what I understand, the Itanic port is giving them big headaches, and Intel is none-too-pleased about it.
I can see the round table discussion now. . . (Score:4, Funny)
"No way--*you* compile it!"
"No way! Hey--let's get Mikey, he'll compile *anything*!"
Security? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean they've got more than one guy working on security for Windows? Oh come on, who's gonna believe that?
Re:Security? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's more like 'the fact that your vest isn't bulletproof doesn't matter until somebody invents the gun.'
UNIX had the exact same problem; the entire point behind UNIX was that it was MULTICS with a bunch of the security stuff REMOVED. Go look on some old security lists; many daemons, such as sendmail or lpd, would give you root just for the asking.
Compiled? (Score:5, Funny)
History of Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Engineers: "No problem, we'll release betas every year and you can sell them to the public for the price of a finished product."
Bill Gates: "Good idea. What do you think Steve?"
Steve Ballmer: "Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...*wheeze* *hack* *cough*...."
Bill Gates: "It's ideas like those that will make you CEO in 10 years."
Why do Microsoft reviewers always sound... (Score:4, Insightful)
...so full of shit?
To step around the topic for a second:
Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows is dedicated to providing all of the information you need to evaluate Microsoft's current and upcoming Windows operating system technologies. These exciting products include Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1), Windows XP Media Center Edition (code-named Freestyle) Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows Media 9 Series (code-named Corona), and Windows Server 2003, which will launch in April.
Sounds like it'll be an EXCITING, unbiased, hard hitting, honest review to me!
Maybe that's not the best example. But even when you read technical treatises on Microsoft technologies the authors always manage to pack in gushing, surrealist praise.
Wasn't there even a book? THE AWESOME POWER OF DIRECT3D? Amusingly enough, it was released several months after John Carmack and the rest of the gaming industry started bitching Microsoft out for pushing Direct3D over the clearly superior OpenGL.
I'd hate to be all conspiracy here, but damn it's either that or believing that all Microsoft reviewers/writers are really stupid.
Re:Not stupid. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
You know how to an 8-year-old boy, his dad's favorite sports team is the greatest thing in the world, able to turn lepers to supermodels and bath beads into geltabs? It's basically the same phenomenon.
It stops being amusing after a couple years reading the
Re:Why do Microsoft reviewers always sound... (Score:3, Informative)
Rest of the gaming industry? From my viewpoint it was Carmack alone.
Clearly superior OpenGL? Depends what you're using it for. OpenGL certainly wasnt (and still isnt in many cases) faster on consumer level cards. Direct3D was developed alongside consumer level hardware supporting features that actually exist, OpenGL was designed on paper.
By and large 3D gaming was being written for glide, and developers absolutely loved an open api specifically targetted for game development.
Re:Why do Microsoft reviewers always sound... (Score:4, Interesting)
My example:
Reviewer A writes a technical summary of some new MSFT product. Reviewer A invested months learning this new product and how it fits into MSFT's overall strategy. Reviewer A runs a consulting firm that specializes in MSFT products. That firm has invested time in training its people to know the new MSFT product. Reviewer A is probably not conciously being unethical, but he needs people to use this new MSFT product so his firm can make money helping companies solve the new problems that this product created. He writes a review/book that highlights the good points and downplays the bad points.
So, his review is biased, but it's not exactly a conspiracy by MSFT.
Re:Why do Microsoft reviewers always sound... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's endemic in the entire "review industry." In fact, it's rampant in the media industry. Do you think The Filthy Critic gets invited on junkets, or out on the yacht with all the hot, willing little starlets?
Many reviewers are nothing more than karma whores. That's the reason for the founding of Consumer Reports.
The ones who are not get "modded down" to the fringes and you're less likely to even come across them.
That's the way it is, that is the way it shall be.
KFG
Punted to longhorn (Score:4, Funny)
"On the day I attended, one feature group had four of its bugs punted to Longhorn because they had failed to shown up for War Room. When someone argued that they should be given another day, Wanke simply said, "F#$% 'em. If it was that important, they would have been here. It's in Longhorn. Next bug."
Did one feature group have its *feature* postponed to longhorn or the *bug-fixes* postponed to longhorn ? hmmmmmm interesting.
Thank that fscking IIS guy... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Punted to longhorn (Score:3, Interesting)
It is true though, when the war room meets you have to have somebody there to vouch for any fixes checked in to resolve bugs. Mostly the war room wants to hear about impact, if the fix was tested, any issues that arose from the testing (regressions and/or new problems), and if the fix is really needed.
best quote from the article (Score:5, Funny)
Incremental build? (Score:5, Funny)
"...compiling and linking it into the executable and other components that make up a Windows CD is a 12 to 13 hour process that is done every day of the week
So they rebuild Windows from scratch every day? Somebody send them a copy of make, please.
Re:Incremental build? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Incremental build? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incremental build? (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly!
If rebuilding libX is going to cause you problems, then you want to know about that NOW and fix it. I don't see any benefit to waiting to address build issues. Do you seriously think you're going to improve your productivity?
Re:Incremental build? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it depends on exactly how much you trust the software that decides what depends on what and what's changed. Can you honestly tell me you've never had a problem that doing a "make clean" fixed?
All I'm saying is that for the groups I've worked in, the cost of having the automated script do a "make clean all" as opposed to "make all" each night is considered acceptable for the peace of mind that knowing that absolutely every change is accounted for and there's no possible dependencies that got dropped in by make.
The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Passing IRP's (IO request packets) between drivers creates a much more well-defined interface that a bunch of globally namespaced functions just calling each other (like some other OSes we all know). It also lends itself to a layered driver model (Bus Driver, Physical Driver, Functional Driver) much better.
I really like the NT Kernel. What driver developers do with it isn't the kernel's fault.
Re:The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to run the GUI and video drivers in userspace for stability on a server or workstation, then I could. But the kernel mode is definately a huge speed boost for gaming, multimedia (remember how impossible it was to do anything like that under NT 4.0?)
All in all, I probably like it better the way it is. I've never had a problem so long as I stick with WHQL certified drivers. It'd be nice to be able to choose.
Re:The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read some interesting defenses of moving GDI to the kernel. Some of the rationale was:
Personally, I would love to see an OS take advantage of more than 2 of the 4 "rings" an x86 processor has. In such an OS, one could theoretically have a driver crash, and could still recover.
Until that day, though, I agree - GUI subsystem code is hard to make bulletproof, and moving said code into the "sacred" kernel is pretty gutsy.
Re:The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Had three downloads coming down with Mozilla, nearly maxing out my connection (each about 700KB/s). Then, the machine bluescreened and said TCPIP.SYS (or something similar to do with networking... i forget exactly what it was) had dumped.
Another instance was when I accidentally started 3 instances of outlook. The machine just bluescreened and rebooted. these are two different machinines. They are dual boot Linux/Win2k, and Linux works fine doing the same (type of) thing.
I have also crashed linux, so don't think I am just trashing the NT kernel. Linux and NT could both use some work to get where some of the commercial unixes are. But, I think Win2k and Linux are fairly solid, but there is definately room for both kernels to improve, and we don't need to get started on the older VM problems either.
I remember one day about a year ago when we managed to crash an N-class HPUX server. I thought the world might end - it is that stable. We found out it was a hardware failure that didn't manifest until several months down the road. Still, HPUX and Sub boxes are a lot more stable than windows or Linux, luckily that gap is getting smaller though and we get more stability for less money.
Re:The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:4, Funny)
Boy, its a good thing that no frame buffers are in the Linux kernel.
Re:The NT Kernel Is Good (Score:5, Informative)
Well....... maybe.
I seem to recall an MS employee claiming that it was entirely Microsofts fault Windows was so unstable, even though crashes were normally caused by faulty drivers. His theory was that if MS were more open with the kernel code, driver manufacturers could work more closely and easier with them, and the overall stability would go up. Instead what happened (they claimed) was that they would investigate a crash, find that some dodgy driver was screwing about with the kernel and so they'd tighten up the interfaces, get even more secretive with the code. The driver developers, faced with a brick wall, would then invent even more elaborate (and fragile) hacks to do what they want, so the stability went down, not up.
So, you can't really blame the kernel as a thing per se, but perhaps you can blame the management of it. Linux is now facing a similar problem with the growth of binary only drivers - they tend to hook into the ksyms and cause extremely hard to track down bugs, which is why they are no longer allowed to use those hooks.
argument clinic (Score:5, Funny)
To be honest, I don't see why they just don't hold these bug fixing meetings around the IIS guys desk :o)
Interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
I think it's safe to say that they're most defniitely _NOT_ using VSS!
Inside the Development of Windows NT? (Score:3, Funny)
NT source (Score:5, Funny)
So in a couple of years we'll learn that:
Re:NT source (Score:3, Funny)
CE-ME-NT --- Cement.
War Room (Score:5, Funny)
"Okay, Next bug: Clicking 'cancel' button at login circumvents the authentication process. Security team! what is this?!?"
"Uhhh Security Team isn't here today."
"Yeah?!? Punt that bug to longhorn!"
"Umm may-be we can give them ano-"
"F*$# Them! Punt to longhorn, Next!"
Scariest quote: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else design an OS in two weeks?
Microserfs find solid products "unrewarding". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microserfs find solid products "unrewarding". (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Microserfs find solid products "unrewarding". (Score:4, Insightful)
Is their focus security/stability or marketing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bug handling (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that they were forgetting about that orher large-scale software engineering task, in which thousands (tens of thousands?) of people crunch out code and compile software every day.
What's that called?
Linux.
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and they quite clearly say that they're not compiling the NT kernal, they're compiling the contents of the CD; everything from notepad, calc and solitare to the admin tools and everything in between.
Tux, undercover... (Score:3, Funny)
See it here [winsupersite.com]
Secret .NET language leaked (Score:4, Funny)
C#, J#, S#....now we have F#....shall we pronounce it "Fuck Sharp"?
Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that, is it any wonder that MS would rather do things "in house" than rely on third parties?
the sheer numbers of developers involved... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am reminded of the massive engineering projects the Soviets used to do just because they could-- it wouldn't make sense in terms of feeding their people or making their lives any more secure, but they did it because the central planners knew they could plan it.
This seems similar-- NT will become such an incredible beast that the bureaucracy to maintain it will suffocate it, or they'll start taking shortcuts.
ReactOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike some doomed attempts to make a "better" Windows clone *cough*Freedows*cough* that degenerated into a puff of vaporware, the fine people at ReactOS have been keeping their noses to the grindstone and quietly worked away at getting an NT clone working. It's still a long way from replacing NT, as this screenshot [reactos.com] of the one and only GUI application shows.
But if you want a free and open look at Inside the development of [a] Windows NT [clone], ReactOS is a good place to look.
They've done a number of things right:
Did I mention they spend thankless hours coding?
How MS "punishes" bug meeting truants (Score:5, Interesting)
"This late in the development process, bugs are often passed along, or "punted," to the next Windows release--Longhorn--if they're not sufficiently problematic."
"The atmosphere in War Room is intimidating, and I spent most of my time in the room, silent and almost cowering, praying that Wanke wouldn't turn his attention to me or my group.... The most virulent treatment, naturally, is saved for those foolish enough to blow off a War Room meeting. On the day I attended, one feature group had four of its bugs punted to Longhorn because they had failed to shown up for War Room. When someone argued that they should be given another day, Wanke simply said, "F#$% 'em. If it was that important, they would have been here. It's in Longhorn. Next bug."
So... in this macho atmosphere, reeking of testosterone... the punishment for not being that the bug meet is that... YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIX YOUR BUGS UNTIL THE NEXT MAJOR RELEASE?????????
Words fail me...
Bugs (Score:3, Interesting)
7000 "bug fixes" for one developer (Score:3, Funny)
Ahh, good ol' sed. I wonder if he used the Windows version, or if he booted up the Linux box? :-)
This just goes to show that even the biggest software developers have to deal with "simple" requests like name changes that are very inefficient uses of engineers time. I want to know what super-duper advanced bug system they use.
50+ million lines of code! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft and the Empire State Building (Score:4, Insightful)
For comparison, the Empire State Building took a little over a year and had at most 3,400 workers on the project at any one time.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish.
Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
My favorite...
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Developer Count. (Score:5, Insightful)
Each person would need to review 50,000,000/(5000*30) = ~333 lines of code per day. Not quite so intimidating.
--grendel drago
Re:Developer Count. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dave Cutler's "Vision" (Score:3, Informative)
Only the Linux KERNEL is 5 mln lines (Score:4, Informative)
The size of the WinNT kernel is nowhere near the 5 mln lines of code, I believe it is well below 1 mln. lines.
The WinNT is also only compiled for Intel platform, so it does not include code for other platforms.
I disagree - not spam, just a great book. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is simply the BEST look at the insides and development of NT around. The article on Paul's site is dry and doesn't even remotely express the truth behind NT.
For example, ShowStopper reveils the amount of disgust the NT team (or at least Daves side) -really- felt towards Win16 compatability. The canned articles says how 'easy it was' and what a 'good idea' it was.
Show stopper explains how rejected it REALLY was from most of the team and how much of a complete and utter headache it was to implement the Windows 'personality'.
The articles linked are not bad when talking about the latest version of Windows, but it's very much preaching and definatly doesn't tell much about how NT started out and it's effect on Microsoft as a whole.
The whole GUI thing was actually pretty much a laugh to the DEC people Dave dragged over with him, and the practice of 'eating dogfood' at Microsoft was really first imposed by Dave himself. And there's intresting background on the IBM/MS OS/2 debacle (Windows NT was originally going to be OS/2 NT!) and how Windows very nearly didn't have anything approaching usable graphics until Michael Abrash himself came in with his 'new trick' that actually allowed NT to show graphics at a usable rate and was the first step to removing the console.
Anyway, I don't want to do a book review here, let's just say that the above articles are far too preachy, the book shows the REAL story and I recommend it. And I'm sure that's why the other three people have plugged it also
Re:Branding Issue Bugs? (Score:3, Informative)
A 'branding issue bug' is when you have morons who hard code the name of the OS into the source files instead of referring to a specific variable or a fixed file.
As a quote from the interview says: "I went out and handpicked the three best developers on the team and said, 'just go and fix it.' One developer fixed over 7,000 references to [Windows] .NET Server. Let's just say that there are people I trust, and people I don't trust. I told these guys, 'don't tell me what you're doing. Just do it.'"
So clearly a lot of the developers are hard-coding certain things into the code rather than relying on a solid design document. Sloppy, very sloppy.
dave
Re:12 hour compiles!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Even as a dev, I try to run a clean build of my systems when I leave Friday. I can't tell you how many times a weird bug has been caused by some missed dependancy that the make system wasn't rebuilding.