Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Follow-up on EVE's Boot.ini Issue

Posted by Zonk on from the that-bootini-to-you dept.

Krinsath writes "CCP, publishers of Eve Online, have posted a Dev Blog detailing the circumstances leading up to the deletion of XP's boot.ini file, which was earlier discussed on Slashdot. The blog post has intimate details about how the mistake occurred (a new installer from their normal one), how they responded and what CCP has learned from it. While fairly dry, it is to the company's credit that they're being open about one of the more serious bugs to crop up in gaming's recent history."

10 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. That's actually a really straightforward response. by Silverlancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now if only more businesses acted this way.

  2. How is that even possible by AndrewBuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article...

    "Why doesn't Windows protect its system startup files? That's a good question, one that I have asked myself in these last few days and wish I knew the answer. But of course I'm not going to blame Microsoft for our mistake. Windows doesn't protect those files and therefore software developers must take care not to touch them. We should have been more careful."

    That is a good question. I am not an EVE player myself so I don't know if this update had to be run with admin privileges but it doesn't appear to be that way from the question and reply. If you are not running as admin then how is it even possible to remove a system file that is necessary to boot the system. Unlike the EVE representative making this statement I am going to blame Microsoft, it should not be the developers responsibility to make sure they don't break the OS, it is the OS developers responsibility to make sure that it cannot be broken without admin/system/root access.

    -Buck

    1. Re:How is that even possible by Osty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is a good question. I am not an EVE player myself so I don't know if this update had to be run with admin privileges but it doesn't appear to be that way from the question and reply. If you are not running as admin then how is it even possible to remove a system file that is necessary to boot the system. Unlike the EVE representative making this statement I am going to blame Microsoft, it should not be the developers responsibility to make sure they don't break the OS, it is the OS developers responsibility to make sure that it cannot be broken without admin/system/root access.

      Two things to note:

      1. This was an XP problem. Technically it could've happened on Vista, but I haven't seen anything that said it did. As such, this falls into the same category of problems that Microsoft attempted to fix in Vista with UAC -- nearly everybody ran XP as admin, and many apps expected you to be running as admin.
      2. This was a problem with an installer/uninstaller. Since nearly everything on Windows installs into %programfiles% and that's a shared location, installers need admin access (installers that ask if you want to install for "Just this user" or "Everyone" are not going to install in %userprofile% if you choose "Just this user". They're just looking to see if the Start Menu shortcuts should go into "%appdata%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu" or "%allusersprofile%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu"). Vista will elevate your privleges when you try to run an installer (you'll get a UAC prompt), after which a misbehaving installer could screw up boot.ini. Regardless of operating systems, you almost always install applications as administrator. Yes, you can install apps in $HOME on *nix systems, but 9 times out of 10 you'll use sudo on the installer (sudo apt-get install foo). Therefore this is technically a bug that could happen on any OS. It's not difficult to imagine an application install that deletes your kernel image, for example.
      The real WTF here is that they have an important game file named "boot.ini". That's an exceedingly poor choice of filename. Think of it like having a game file called "autoexec.bat" or "vmlinuz" that actually has nothing to do with the DOS boot process or the Linux kernel. The only defense they give for that is "legacy".
    2. Re:How is that even possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh don't play that game. It is so tiresome. You know 99% of the users are running as admin because thats just what you do in windows.

  3. Re:Straightforward, sure.. but... | also, the bug by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what of the users who did lose valuable computer time due to this problem?


    That's a good point. And generates some good advice for future student/gamers: Do not install any new software of any kind a week or two before a paper is due*

    *at least, not without having some kind of back-up which can be read and worked on on another computer and which you regular test.

    TFM reads, as they point out, that "Delete" requires a full path to be safe or else it expects the path to be root


    That sounds like the the opposite of a good way for delete to fail.
    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Re:Straightforward, sure.. but... | also, the bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A dissertation being lost due to a program deleting one or more files shows some value: the value of the system administrator. Zero.
    It would be dumber to keep a dissertation on a single system with no backup, than to distribute a game with an installer that deletes a file.

  5. Re:Straightforward, sure.. but... | also, the bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    anon to bail on mod bits...

    what if in those few hours (if you're not familiar with Windows at all and don't have a boot or rescue disk, etc. etc.) you needed access to those files? Do you file away every new e-mail to an external drive ready to be taken to the nearest computer cafe in case your machine goes wonky? I doubt it.

  6. Re:Straightforward, sure.. but... | also, the bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    anon to bail on mod bits...

    as mentioned in another post - it's not so much the point that you don't have access to the file forevermore.. clearly you can get access back to it. It's that for whatever amount of time between that cockup and your getting things back up and running - you do not have access to it. To some that may not be particularly important, to others it could very well be. And yes, I know, if your data/etc. is so important, one shouldn't be installing games on it anyway - right? :)

  7. Re:Straightforward, sure.. but... | also, the bug by petermgreen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Data stored without backups is vulnerable to many things. Buggy software, viruses, hardware failure and so on. If you lose data as valuable as a phd thesis due to such a failure then IMO you who have been negligent.

    We don't expect hardware vendors to provide anything more than a replacement when thier products fail and I don't see why software should be any different.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  8. Re:Straightforward, sure.. but... | also, the bug by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually I've found that EVE provides such a nuanced experience that it would be totally lost on anyone not older than 16. The game isn't the GAME, it's the little political games that we play within the rules of the game. For example, having Band of Brothers, the largest alliance in the game, put in an appearance when we're fighting a smaller alliance indicates that that smaller alliance is allied with BOB.

    There are more games to be played against other players than just fleet battles. You can fight alliances on the market by crashing it for their goods.

    --
    SRSLY.