http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09..._for_warships/
anything seem wrong about this????
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09..._for_warships/
anything seem wrong about this????
there used to be something here, but not anymore
Nope.
Hating Windows is so 1998
I don't have a problem with it. Microsoft very often uses unethical business techniques (like the rumored blocking of GMail invites from Hotmail and MSN inboxes), but Windows itself I think has made some great strides in quality. Like BMJ said, the anti-Microsoft senitment is left over from some really crappy decisions made on their past OS's, like ME. XP I think is a great operating system. No doubt the British military will be making some changes to it to make it even better, but it certainly would not surprize me if most distros of Linux have more bugs than XP. The only thing that would worry me is Microsoft bad history with security holes. I don't know if that would be a problem when communicating using military-grade networks, however.
I think windows on subs is a very bad idea. Think about it.
Is that a pun about literal windows?
>>XP I think is a great operating system
have you tried sp2? have you tried the service packs of service pack 2?
>>but it certainly would not surprize me if most distros of Linux have more bugs than XP
you can't be serious! i run windows xp and suse. do you know how much harder i have to work to keep windows updated? (and yes, i do all the bug fixes in both of my OSes). in suse, there are occasional updates of software, some security some functionality. other than that, it's mostly smooth sailing. but hell in windows, i download the patches and the next day i figure out that those patches created more holes and i need to download more patches to patch the holes the patch before created while trying to cover up some holes that were before. and the cycle continues. ever seen anything like that in any of the linux distros you used?
face it man, unless you are running some stupid distro and installing software that aren't trusted, a Linux distro itself can never have as much holes in ten years as windows does to date.
I was on a navy survey ship, and they used redhat linux, I feel safe now .
Help populate a c/c++ help irc channel
server: irc://irc.efnet.net
channel: #c
I would say that you are partially right; however, it more has to do with what is done with those holes that really makes linux shine. Most security exploits are found and fixed within the first week of a new release if there are any.ace it man, unless you are running some stupid distro and installing software that aren't trusted, a Linux distro itself can never have as much holes in ten years as windows does to date.
there used to be something here, but not anymore
Cii... I'm no fan of Windows, but there are so many random Linux distributions that I would be willing to bet that most of them have more bugs/flaws than Windows. If you just look at mainstream distros or purpose-built systems, things probably change (especially in the latter case). There are really so many random ones, though.
Let's say you're in a submarine. Somehow you get a hole in the wall and water starts coming in. You try stuffing things up against the hole but everything you try tears away the material and the hole just gets bigger. In that case, most inteligent forms of life would stop stuffing their belongings up against the hole and try a different method. There are other solutions to the problems in Windows. I've only ever installed the urgent virus patches, and then when I hear about a new security hole, I use a different solution. Most people I think hate Windows because it's popular to hate Bill Gates and makes you look like thoughtful, well-informed, IT-person. Now if someone like Thantos had made a well-argued post why Windows was a bad idea, I'd listen and take it into consideration. I will admit that I used to be one of those people.i download the patches and the next day i figure out that those patches created more holes and i need to download more patches to patch the holes the patch before created while trying to cover up some holes that were before
Most of the Microsoft software out there is illegal whether you know it or not. I heard a story about some Microsoft employees ordering some workstations to get started on a new project, and while setting them up discovered boot-leg versions of Windows 95 (It was a while ago) on every one of them. You recommend that I only install trusted software. This is the MS equivalent.
edit:I am of course also not saying that Linux would be a bad idea, but to add to this thought, the British Navy is probably not going to go down to their local electronics store, get some end-user software, install it, and then smash a bottle of wine on the front of the sub. I can almost guarantee you they're going to make changes to the software. It'll just all be based on the NT Kernel.If you just look at mainstream distros or purpose-built systems, things probably change (especially in the latter case).
Last edited by sean; 09-11-2004 at 09:20 AM.
they might get a discount on Microsoft Visual Cruise Missile mind youOriginally Posted by sean_mackrory
frankly, I don't think thats its going to be your average I-just-wanna-see-my-email user that will be working for the navy. I could be wrong, but i doubt that the radar, periscope, torpedo launcher, engines etc. are plug and play with USB ports :/ windows 2000-3 doesn't sound to bad an idea. although a custom built distro sounds like a better option to me, i don't think its such a big deal that they are using windows
I loathe pointers
We use Windows to run our entire factory. If it fails you just reboot the system. But since its Windows 2000 we really don't have much trouble. Every program will hard lock at some point and its not all that disastrous. Just reboot. When you reboot all systems go into idle mode and keep doing what they were doing prior to the reboot. Since a reboot only takes like 3 minutes or so this usually does not cause any problems.
Plus you also have backup systems that are running at all times. If the central computer system is down then each individual system controls a certain zone of the system instead of one computer controlling the whole thing. When the system dies, the zone systems take over.
With redundancy and failsafe's built in using Windows is really not a bad idea.
my mum works for a company called Mapics that makes factory software (or something like that) and aparantly they decided to step up their windows support because all the developers were raving about .NET
I loathe pointers
> (like the rumored blocking of GMail invites from Hotmail and MSN inboxes)
I got mine in my hotmail box
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Hence the "rumored".> (like the rumored blocking of GMail invites from Hotmail and MSN inboxes)
I got mine in my hotmail box
.NET was a big part of what made me switch back to a Microsoft fan.my mum works for a company called Mapics that makes factory software (or something like that) and aparantly they decided to step up their windows support because all the developers were raving about .NET