I just re-read my posts and I don't see where I've said anything that implies "we aren't smart enough to question or understand the rationale" or that "none of us is as dumb as all of us" is impossible.
The most I said is that it "seems fair to assume" that the file system team had more facts about the situation than us ("better understanding of the file system, tool, and needs of their user base"). You of course don't have to give the file system team the benefit of the doubt. You can assume that you know more than them and that they are all idiots if you want, that's your perogative.
All I know for sure is that I am an end user, I simply employ said technologies.
I've never seen the user feedback they receive about NTFS or chkdsk. 50% of their feedback might say that chkdsk should draw pictures of flowers while working. IT workers are sensitive and really in tune with their feelings so that being true would hardly shock me. I also have never done any programming interaction with or for NTFS (a reality I suspect for most if not all of this forum). So hey, if someone from the incredible edible internet wants to roll into here and issue forth from the fountain of knowledge, I'm all eyes. Be warned though, I am armed with a large amount of grains of salt. The best I could find on a short Google was the link I provided to Ed Bott who also says it's not a bug and details how it completed a chkdsk of his system in fifteen minutes.
Nothing unveiled has reavealed the file system team to be idiots. Since this isn't a bug, we have disagreement on implementation. There are lots of those in the world. For instance, I really like UAC. I suspect I'm outnumbered by the people who don't. Perhaps one day the rest of the world will realize I'm right. I expect I might get named king of the earth on that day too.
You posted your blog link as a "none of us is as dumb as all of us" example. What I see when I read that is a story of conflict over a choice during development. I'd point out that I had already assumed just such a fight had occured. "There's no way the whole team was in lockstep to the idea originally. Someone must have no doubt voiced the concept that the perception of the feature would get them mocked as well." Your link details just how hard slog it is to get a feature implemented. With the caveat of course that said blogger isn't even sure if his situation was representative of the norm. So I voiced my disagreement that your link was a good example for "none of us is as dumb as all of us", but that's not the same as saying that "none of us is as dumb as all of us" is impossible. Nor is it saying that "we aren't smart enough to question or understand the rationale". I am on the other hand saying that I think your link reinforces my point that this behavior in chkdsk is in fact by design.
This specific issue made huge waves in the media. It was on all the tech news sites with the various pundits claiming Win7 was doomed to miss RTM. It garnered specific posts about the process of bug examination and the process of that examination of this direct issue by MS. So not only did this specific item receive scrutiny before release, but it continued to attract attention all the way into ship. The answer the entire time that process occured was, "By Design."
Meanwhile remember Vista having trouble with network and audio?
This: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/micr ... -issue/724
Remember all the press that got. Did you see it never get patched?
It got press, it got a blog post by Mark Russinovich detailing it in depth
, and it got a patch
One of these things is not like the other. Notice how this chkdsk thing got the press, got the blog post saying it's not broke, and then didn't get a patch.
Again I never said "we aren't smart enough to question or understand the rationale" nor did I say that "none of us is as dumb as all of us" isn't possible.
Then what is my point? My point is this isn't a bug. My failing was apparently not getting to that point in a quicker manner, but I figured a lack of reasoning would invite conflict. Apparently a plethora of reasoning (and direct references) still invites conflict.
"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend. Come inside! Come inside!"