Posted on 05/12/2013 8:16:39 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
"Computers aboard the International Space Station are to be switched from Windows XP to the Linux operating system in an attempt to improve stability and reliability.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Oh absolutely!!! I hate Windows 8 with a burning passion generally reserved for liberal causes that are promoted in the face of overwhelming evidence that they don't work.
I would like to PERSONALLY beat the crap out of whoever at Microsoft decided to FORCE the "Metro UI" on users who are not on a tablet. I have lost about 3 weeks of production (and contract pay at 75/hr) over this P.O.S
Really depends on the types of systems they’re going to run. If it’s for data gathering and analysis applications then this is a perfectly fine decision, although it matters little.
IF you’re talking about safety critical applications that’s entirely different. In that case, it’s an awful decision. You need a safety critical Real Time OS (RTOS) like Integrity or VxWorks (or VxWorks 653 for really safety oriented apps, like flight management). They’re used where “life and limb” levels of reliability are needed.
So it depends on the application if this is a good decision or not. That said, I know NASA has used VxWorks in the past, they understand the difference between OS’s.
It all depends on what they'd have change TO. Microsoft pushes Win8 now, and it removed Win7 from the shelves. Whatever remains now at TigerDirect and other resellers is just old stock. It will eventually run out, and then what do you do, as NASA, if you need more copies for new or replacement hardware?
There is yet another problem - licensing. Windows, starting with Vista, introduced online licensing. On ISS you would have to keep a separate server to run KMS on. This is a single point of failure, and it's ridiculous on a space station anyway (and in most industrial settings too.) Linux does not require licensing.
Yet another problem is in custom drivers. amd64 builds require drivers to be signed by Microsoft, or you have to hold F8 during boot-up and select an option that disables this check for this session only. This is ridiculous. NASA may have tens of custom drivers, to operate all kinds of special devices on ISS. Windows XP was more liberal; you write the driver, and it loads. Starting with Vista, that had been intentionally broken. NASA cannot afford to go through MS's process of signing drivers - that process is designed for consumer hardware, and it may be completely unusable if your hardware is unique.
Changing a software system now is like permitting someone to interrupt me when I pack for a two week vacation.
It was Microsoft who decided to pull the plug on WinXP. So the decision had been made for NASA. You cannot run an unsupported OS on ISS - and note that for one computer on ISS there is a hundred on the ground. Can you tell the astronauts "The software that I sent you installs and works on my copy of Win8, and I can't help you if your WinXP says "msfghegr11.dll is not found?" Those guys don't need excuses, they need solutions that work.
Once you have to migrate, you then have to choose Windows or Linux. (I guess Mac is not an option because of installed hardware.) Windows 8 is a work in progress; Microsoft already is sending signals that Windows Blue will undo some of Win8 misfeatures, and will double down on others. How can NASA, or anyone else to that matter, bet the farm on software that even the manufacturer has no roadmap for? Linux has such a roadmap, even though it has no CEO who'd make those decisions. You like Plasma desktop, for example? Grab a copy and keep it, it's now yours for as long as you like. Need updates? They are available; in the worst case they'd come from you. But there is no dead end. Even the oldest Linux software can be ran, if you need to.
Someone mentioned RTOS. I'm sure NASA heard about those :-) However they are poorly suited for general purpose computing. They are designed to run one specific machine, and that is it. For example, your microwave may be operated by an RTOS. Some versions can be loaded onto a PC, but they are hard to use, and they are very insecure - by design. They sacrifice process isolation for performance, for example. In Windows and Linux processes cannot see each other's memory. In an RTOS they can; and failure of one program can kill the entire computer, just like it was in the days of Windows 3.1. They have no virtual memory either; and many RTOS don't even have a user interface.
“I would like to PERSONALLY beat the crap out of whoever at Microsoft decided to FORCE the “Metro UI” on users who are not on a tablet”
Hey, take a number! I’m number 16,345,897!
“In an RTOS they can”
Um, no. The very purpose of an RTOS is to segment processes from each other.
“They have no virtual memory either”
Actually they do but it is an optional module to load. None of mine have virtual memory as I design the system and not just hack on it until something appears on the screen like typical developers do.
:’)
“In space, no-one can hear your [blue] screen [of death]”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.