>>> the person charged with the responsibility of testing the code FAILED TO HIS/HER JOB.
>
>Look, John, the issue here is the may code fail if it is checking a *removable drive* in some OSes. It's a minor omission. You (everyone) are making a mountain out of a molehill.
>

Assuming that I relied on the content of FPA to assist me in doing my job, I'd be disappointed in receiving advice such as this as a recommended practice from a major industry publication, charging a cover price of $4.99/issue. I can get better advice for free from the helpful residents here on UT, and the cost of a PUTM is lower than the annual cost of FPA? Do you subscribe to FPA? I note you do not subscribe to UT as a PUTM...

Of course, the residents of UT have a nasty tendency to pass judgements on the quality of bovine excrement exuded from the pores of the less-helpful residents at times, but some of us are rude, crude and socially unacceptable. That we get our facts straight is of far less consequence of someone of your standing and background...