ISS Switches To Linux

reply to post by PhoenixOD


lol, I guess I stepped into that one. Though, I didn't say they would all be laughing. Just most of them. I'm sticking with the "shoddy" assessment. I think they make a low-quality product considering the resources available to them, and I don't appreciate the way they have manipulated the industry.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Awesomeness!!

Trouble is Linux still needs a good windowsesk shell for it to be user friendly. But for Servers it's the only way to go IMHO. I used to manage quite a few virtual servers administering through PLESK, wayyy better than any Microsoft solution.

I was shocked to realize that the ISS was on a Microsoft platform, and a little surprised they didn't have some bespoke OS of their own for the ISS alone.

S&F

Korg.

reply to post by Slugworth


There is so much more to the Microsoft systems under the hood than most people will ever understand. That's because they are designed to work well in many different ways.

You may want to think its 'shoddy' for whatever reason that's fine, but spend as many years as i did learning the systems inside and out to become a fully qualified Microsoft Professional and Microsoft Technology Specialist and you will understand how clever the systems really are.

All that and i don't even 'hate' on *Nix or Apple ..i have to use those systems as well. Like i said they all have their merits and none of them are terrible. Some are better than other for certain jobs..in certain situations. Part of being a professional is knowing which to use and when. The most difficult part is knowing how they can all work together and integrate.

I have no problem with saying that a *nix based system would work better for the ISS

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by jimmyx

 

That sword cuts both ways. But the whole subject is something of a red herring as we're not discussing whether not Linux is more stable than Windows. We are discussing the fact that the folks in charge of the I.S.S believe it is.

you are assuming. it may well be that they have some use for low-latency operating system, and linux kernel has some features when it comes to that. that, and the fact that keeping software base developed for two platforms in the same time is more time consuming, could make the difference. the cost of windows licenses is hardly a factor in case of space-related projects, there are other things that matter. it's fairly easy to use all those laptops as a computational cluster when the need arises for example - and if they don't have internet access up there, that may very well be the case. usage of linux in places like CERN means that perhaps they may be able to use some scientific software developed at CERN up there. the possibilities are endless, and none of them has to mean that windows is in any way worse.

claims that windows has to be rebooted every 3 days to avoid crashes, are not only childish, but pathetic. the difference between windows and linux is that windows does its best to recover from the damage caused by user being an idiot. linux doesn't care. well, some new user environments do, and they start to look more and more like OSX, but that's not what we're talking about here. when the user is stupid enough and determined enough, he'll be able to crash linux far easier than windows, and sometimes a single misspelling in a script running with root privileges may cause huge data loss. also, linux as a kernel may be rather error-free, but linux as an operating system consists not only of linux kernel, but also whole lot of userspace software (command line and very well tested and rather error-free as well), and user environment - graphical desktop. and when it comes to that, unless they're using something old/oldschool, well tested and stable, you can bet they may encounter more bugs in first weeks of using kde or gnome, than they saw under windows in their lives.

i was using endless linux and bsd variants for quite a few years, i've worked as a server admin and i'm a programmer and i've worked as such as well. right now i'm using windows on my desktop pc and it can run as long as needed (weeks or more) without restart, and without exhibiting any signs of slowdown or software problems, not even speaking about crashes. software development, web browsing, multimedia playback, it's constantly used for all of that and much more, and nothing bad happens. does it prove that windows is better than linux? of course not. what it does prove though, is that if end user is an idiot, system will crash sooner than later, but if he's not, well. operating systems that are marked as production ready, don't slow down with time or crash themselves on their own. neither does windows, neither linux. really. it's a myth spread by fanboys - sadly, mostly by linux fanboys, because they desperately need yet another 'reason' to 'prove themselves' to be 'better' than others - because they're using 'better' operating system.

what does sometimes crash though, and what may cause serious problems, is a buggy software running on no-matter-how-good operating system. unfortunately - apart from the linux kernel itself, which is a true marvel - most opensource software has much higher bugs-per-linecount ratio than their commercial counterparts, because even if they use some real planning and mark certain releases as production ready, the whole opensource development model brings new bugs to the code by design, and only careful balancing between bringing new features and keeping code quality high - like in the case of the linux kernel and other things that just cannot fail because they'll crash the whole system, like device drivers - may protect the project's quality from going downhill. and while most opensource projects are doing fairly well in that regard, they're usually not doing as good as their commercial counterparts. that, together will the fact that a linux distribution like debian linux consists mostly of third party software developed by random people from all over the world, compared to the fact that windows consists of software developed almost entirely at microsoft, may really mean it'll be a sword that cuts both ways.

at least they've chosen debian, which has a reputation of being really stable, not like some of its derivatives, oriented at 'less smart' people. i guess they know that 'stable' means just 'crash free', not 'everything works without a hassle', and they probably figured they can handle it. it all depends on the software they've chosen.

Boy, that's kind of drastic. They really didn't like windows 8 So now those Windows CDs are going to look like flying saucers floating around the space station on their pictures. Cool, now we got some new disinfo for debunking.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Slugworth

 

There is so much more the Microsoft systems under the hood than most people will ever understand. That's because they are designed to work well in many different ways. The true complexity of the systems overwhelming sometimes.

Although that maybe true... it's horses for courses...

Although Windows has been designed with flexability and fluidity in mind wich is as you quite rightly say is it's strengh... it is also it's weakness and flaw.

The reason is it is imposible to tell with any certainty how windows is going to react at any given time. is Windows is like a skyscraper built on the foundations of a cottage. One small error in a .dll file and the whole system can become unstable.

I use a PC at the heart of my recording studio because 99% of the software I use is pc based. However I can tell you I get soooo fed up of weeding out errors and end up spending a lot of my time with my engineer hat on as opposed to my creative musician hat.

Linux however or at a less degree these days the IOS platforms are far less complicated and so far easier to predict. yep those platforms are a bugger to get them to do exactly what you want them to do but once you have got the job done you know it will stay done.

Catch my drift?

Korg.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

I think you are missing the larger point, which is that this announcement is a small but impressive victory for community-based free open source software over commercial software produced by a company with a history of monopolistic behavior and shoddy design.

Whoa whoa ... I really have to pull the hand brake on this!

Monopolistic behavior ... name a high end software or hardware company that doesn't have this type of behavior in some way shape or form? Apple isn't any different. Companies creating Linux based applications are well on their way on the road to hell.

Shoddy design?

I completely agree. Recent issues and things that have cost users millions of dollars:

-Telecom users having their devices jacked and used to run up massive bills on the web.
- Responsible for over 80% of threats to devices installed on according to a Q4 threat report last year.
- Online pay scams due to having a poorly controlled market place.
- Image recognition system could be thwarted by taking a photo of the user and printing it from face book
- User credentials easily stolen from and imaged against the device's will
- Multiple anti virus solutions to help users distinguish between malware over stepping its bounds and legitimate software.
- It was involved in an issue last year where a major Asian university had login credentials broadcast unencrypted ....

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

Say that to a room full of computer engineers, and pay attention to the righteous gut-laughs that fill the room.

Everything I just said above is from a Linux distro called Android.

The thing that breaks operating systems according to most developers is users and features. The main thing that actually breaks operating systems is developers making features badly (very simplistic).

You take a bad developer and put them on Linux to build a complex system they will put something out that makes a Microsoft operating system look amazing. If your room of computer engineers went head to head with Microsoft with the same design brief ... my money is going to be on Microsoft unfortunately.

Keep in mind am saying this as a person that has a Linux network! Linux probably is the correct tool for the job for the space station. I can't imagine why they would need half of windows features.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I agree with a lot of what you are saying, in fact its echo'ing a lot of what i wrote in the post you took the quote from.

reply to post by Pinke

Monopolistic behavior ... name a high end software or hardware company that doesn't have this type of behavior in some way shape or form?

Define "high end" and I will.

i'll add one more thing for clarification of my previous post, which is unfortunately so long that i cannot add it there.

when i wrote about assuming that they think that linux is more stable, i meant the true reasons behind that statement - which was not only about the stability, but also flexibility. if you'll try to 'bend' an operating system to do stuff it was not designed for, you may get stability problems. that does not mean that the operating system itself isn't stable, it just means it may not be the best choice for the task at hand.

'patching' - what do they need patches for, if they don't have internet access? security is hardly an issue there, after all it's not like one can knock and come in to ISS. i think that with time they found themselves needing to do stuff that windows xp was not designed for. perhaps it has something to do with time-critical reaction times (which may matter when a laptop is being used as a semi-automated remote for some robot flying outside and doing repairs), perhaps with something else, but it seems like they just need an operating system that they can extend themselves when such need arises - why else would they need to be trained by the linux foundation themselves? perhaps if they would know earlier what their exact needs will be, they would choose QNX over windows back then, but right now linux seems like their best bet.

still, that doesn't mean that one is better/more stable than the other. it's all just about choosing the best tool for the task.

reply to post by Hefficide


No more blue screen of death!



Seriously, I am glad alternatives to big box Microsoft were actually looked at, and surprisingly were used.


I honestly think Gates milked his system for as much as he could.

S&F

reply to post by sonnny1

No more blue screen of death!

woah....THAT IS OUT OF LINE.

My joke about rebooting every 3 days was met by an explanation about why it was rediculous and unnecessary I imagine you should prepare for a stiff and humorless rebuttal regarding your comment about BSOD, its causes, and why it is not Microsoft's fault that it happened.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by sonnny1

 

No more blue screen of death!

woah....THAT IS OUT OF LINE.

My joke about rebooting every 3 days was met by an explanation about why it was rediculous and unnecessary I imagine you should prepare for a stiff and humorless rebuttal regarding your comment about BSOD, its causes, and why it is not Microsoft's fault that it happened.

I could post one of those photos of Gates introducing his Products, when that "screen" pops up, but why?


Its damning actually.






Ive run Windows and Linux. Linux is superior, MHO

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Sure. We can compare it to this one:

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, notice that the entire "Criticism of Linux" article is about issues that are completely inapplicable to usage in the ISS. Nobody claimed Linux was perfect, just that it was superior to windows in this setting. When it comes to choosing an OS for the ISS, I'll take the opinion of ISS engineers over a wiki article any day.

and I agree with you...for the ISS, it's great. and since I use windows, I know how glitchy it is, each and every version. it's just the biggest kid on the block, so it gets hacked and attacked more often....what i was surprised by in the OP, was that the ISS was using windows in the first place.

I am one of those surprised that they were using Windows on their computers (especially XP), as Linux is more suitable to be adapted to specific situations, and the ISS is as specific as it gets.

I love the people that make statements about Windows boxes being rebooted every 3 days..
Don't let reality interfere with what you believe!

Originally posted by opethPA
I love the people that make statements about Windows boxes being rebooted every 3 days..
Don't let reality interfere with what you believe!

Tongue and Cheek.....



That said, we have come along way from using the processor speeds of calculators to get us into space, and keep us there.

Agreed. I think the ISS should have been run on OS/2 Warp, sort of seems to be an appropriate name for a space based OS!

dang I would've been kinda worried if someone told me our ISS is running XP. My gosh man.
Go Linux

Originally posted by opethPA
I love the people that make statements about Windows boxes being rebooted every 3 days..
Don't let reality interfere with what you believe!

A previous company I worked at had a graphics designer with a pc running a trail of Photoshop... the trail was date specific expiring in 30 days.... The company was a proper cheap scate and didn't want to fork out for the full product...

Their solution... never reboot the machine...

I worked at that company for 2 years and I know for a fact that that computer was left on day and night just for photoshop and never once rebooted or had a system crash... an exceptional case.

I was very impressed by the dell dx2100 pc running xp pro sp1, very stable so long as it was kept offline.

Korg.