A new definition of 'friendly fire'.
'All hands on deck, we're under attack'! Sorry, capt. windows 2000 has
crashed, we're dead in the water until we re-boot!'
Scary thought isn't it?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Leslie [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 1:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] do the right thing Carly
Bill Brandt ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: And the thought that some mission critical systems like nuclear subs
: might depend on Windows is a bit frightening.
That's already planned for the next nuclear carrier:
http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no27/dod/2868-1.html
Navy carrier to run Win 2000
By Bill Murray
GCN Staff
The Navy's next-generation aircraft carrier will use Microsoft Windows
2000 to run its communications systems, aircraft and weapons
launchers, and other ship electronics.
The CVN 77, one of the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, will
run Microsoft Windows 2000 for a variety of communications and weapons
systems.
Of course, it COULD become a submarine after a BSOD.
:
: We have met the enemy and they are us.
:
Closer to home and a bigger risk to more people are pipeline and
process control systems...
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0002/tech-scigliano.shtml
Could disasters loom as more and more pipeline operators switch
to Windows NT?
"But Matt Saunders, a local expert on Windows NT vulnerability, was less
sanguine when informed of such use. "One would hope that their command
and control policies dictate that control machines should be isolated
from other hosts," he notes, "But this is rarely the case for most
organizations, because it's simply easier to get work done and ignore
the risks.
"It terrifies me that a control system of this nature is being run on NT.
It's simply insane."
Just find a map of pipelines for your area, and locate your home, your
kids' school, etc.
: Maybe by Windows 2015 they'll figure out how to let the thing run
: without hanging.
Compare the reliability of MPE, VMS, or MVS after they were as old as
Windows NT/W2K/WXP. The reliability of those "legacy" operating systems
after that many years is much greater than Windows.
This interview with a former Microsoft Program Manager will give some
insight as to why Microsoft code is so buggy and bloated...
http://www.softwaremarketsolution.com/
"An Interview with Joel Spolsky of JoelonSoftware
Part I of II
Overview
We recently sat down with someone we regard as one of the industry's
most fascinating personalities, Joel Spolsky, president and one of the
founders of Fog Creek Software (www.fogcreek.com), located in New York
City. Joel worked at Microsoft from 1991 to 1994 and has over ten
years of experience managing the software development process. As a
Program Manager on the Microsoft Excel team, Joel designed Excel Basic
and drove Microsoft's Visual Basic for Applications strategy. (Joel
takes particular pride in the fact that on the day Bill Gates asked if
date math functions were compatible across the company's different
procedure and function libraries, he, Joel Spolsky, was able to
reassure the great man himself that with the exception of January and
February 1900, all Microsoft application libraries counted dates the
same way.)
[snip]
SMS: Joel, what, in your opinion, is the single greatest development
sin a software company can commit?
Joel: Deciding to completely rewrite your product from scratch, on the
theory that all your code is messy and bug prone and is bloated and
needs to be completely rethought and rebuild from ground zero."
[snip]
SMS: Yes, but isn't such code tight and small? Don't products built
this way avoid the dreaded "bloatware" label?
Joel: Don't get me started! If you're a software company, there are
lots of great business reasons to love bloatware. For one, if
programmers don't have to worry about how large their code is, they
can ship it sooner. And that means you get more features, and features
make users' lives better (if they use them) and don't usually hurt (if
they don't). As a user, if your software vendor stops, before
shipping, and spends two months squeezing the code down to make it 50%
smaller, the net benefit to you is going to be imperceptible, but you
went for two months without new features that you needed, and THAT
hurt..."
The comment about NOT rewriting code runs counter to:
"Plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow."
"The Mythical Man-Month", Fred Brooks
And the part about bloated code ignores the increased cost of software
testing. No one really needs a flight simulator in their spreadsheet:
http://www.eeggs.com/items/718.html
Eeggs.com - Computers : Applications : Excel :
Excel 97 Flight to Credits
--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
