Glass panels: what OS?

"C J Campbell" writes:

It would be interesting to know why you think Win NT would be
unstable on something like the MX-20.

As a user of 1966 aviation technology, I look at "stability" over
a longer term than a few hours.

Manufacturers who use proprietary software like NT give up control
of their products. In the short term, that means that they might
not be able to make required changes in a timely manner. In the
long term, it means that a very expensive piece of equipment could
become a paperweight, or at least much less useful than it could
be, at the whim of a third party (MS).

The risk of those things happening is, I hope, fairly low, but I
still prefer to deal with a company that takes more control of its
product when investing such a large (to me) amount.

--kyler

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I thought Linux rarely ever crashes but that is only what I've heard.

Actually, I have a Red Hat Linux server. In the six months that I have
owned
it, it has crashed four times and had to be restarted. OTOH, the Windows
XP
Professional computers have not crashed even once during that time.

Hmmm...we're running Oracle on two Linux servers and they've not crashed in
the 10 months I've been at the company. Before that, the company I was at
ran HP-Ux on HP-9000's and they didn't crash in the two years we had them
before the company went under. Well, they burped twice for seven or eight
minutes each time, but the failover was instantaneous.


I hear a lot about Windows' instability. I say it is crap. All I can go on
is my own personal experience, but MS operating systems are the only ones
that I have ever used that can go for more than a few weeks without
crashing.

Hmmm...our WinXP workstations crash about twice a week. We (before I was
there) unloaded Win2000 servers for Linux when we had to shut down at least
twice monthly. Those Win2000 servers, BTW, we set up my Microsoft, so don;t
say that we didn't do it right. The Linux servers were set up by our own
techs, though our #1 geek has an MasterSci EE


What am I supposed to do? Believe my own experience, or believe a
bunch of anti-social geeks who begin frothing at the mouth and chewing the
carpet at the mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates?

Why should we believe you? :~)

snip
Hmmm...our WinXP workstations crash about twice a week. We (before I was
there) unloaded Win2000 servers for Linux when we had to shut down at least
twice monthly. Those Win2000 servers, BTW, we set up my Microsoft, so dont
say that we didn't do it right. The Linux servers were set up by our own
techs, though our #1 geek has an MasterSci EE
snip

Most of the time, when a shop has Linux boxes, it doesn't have techs, it has
OS evangelists, who have a vested interest in insuring that Windows boxes
fail. In most instances, if they would spend as much time learning how to
administer Windows boxes as they do playing with Linux boxes they would see
a marked decrease in their failure rate.

Most Linux heads tend to be geeks, and they tend to put all kinds of geek
crap on their computers. Of course, none of this geek crap is written to
Microsoft standards because geeks know much better ways to do things. If you
put crappy, non-standard software on a machine, it will crash, no matter
what the underlying operating system.

When a new aircraft rolls out the door of the Cessna factory, it was "set
up" by Cessna technicians. But that doesn't mean someone who doesn't know
what they're doing couldn't crash it 15 minutes later.

So, which is better: Windows or Linux? That's like asking which is better:
hammers or screwdrivers. In both instances, you are looking at a tool, and
for a given job one may be superior. But it won't be superior for all jobs.

And consider this: Do you send email? A large chunk of the recipients of
that email get it across networks that weren't set up by Phd/EE's, but were
instead set up by a reasonably intelligent person who saw the need for a
network, read a couple of Windows books, and was able to set up a Windows
network, thanks to the user-friendly Windows installation routines. If they
had needed to rely on Netware, or Linux, or any of the other non-Microsoft
systems those networks would never have been built.

And, in many instances, that's what counts...






"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I thought Linux rarely ever crashes but that is only what I've heard.

Actually, I have a Red Hat Linux server. In the six months that I have
owned
it, it has crashed four times and had to be restarted. OTOH, the Windows
XP
Professional computers have not crashed even once during that time.

Hmmm...we're running Oracle on two Linux servers and they've not crashed
in
the 10 months I've been at the company. Before that, the company I was at
ran HP-Ux on HP-9000's and they didn't crash in the two years we had them
before the company went under. Well, they burped twice for seven or eight
minutes each time, but the failover was instantaneous.


I hear a lot about Windows' instability. I say it is crap. All I can go
on
is my own personal experience, but MS operating systems are the only
ones
that I have ever used that can go for more than a few weeks without
crashing.

Hmmm...our WinXP workstations crash about twice a week. We (before I was
there) unloaded Win2000 servers for Linux when we had to shut down at
least
twice monthly. Those Win2000 servers, BTW, we set up my Microsoft, so
don;t
say that we didn't do it right. The Linux servers were set up by our own
techs, though our #1 geek has an MasterSci EE


What am I supposed to do? Believe my own experience, or believe a
bunch of anti-social geeks who begin frothing at the mouth and chewing
the
carpet at the mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates?

Why should we believe you? :~)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "C J Campbell"
wrote:

What am I supposed to do? Believe my own experience, or believe
a bunch of anti-social geeks who begin frothing at the mouth and chewing
the carpet at the mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates?

well, as long as you have an open mind...

Keep coming up with straight lines like that and you might find a whole new
career opportunity.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


What am I supposed to do? Believe my own experience, or believe a
bunch of anti-social geeks who begin frothing at the mouth and chewing
the
carpet at the mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates?

Why should we believe you? :~)

Obviously, you should believe me because I am an infallible genius. All
those other guys are lunatics.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


What am I supposed to do? Believe my own experience, or believe a
bunch of anti-social geeks who begin frothing at the mouth and chewing
the
carpet at the mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates?

Why should we believe you? :~)

Obviously, you should believe me because I am an infallible genius. All
those other guys are lunatics.

We practice very hard.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:23:08 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
I thought Linux rarely ever crashes but that is only what I've heard.

Actually, I have a Red Hat Linux server. In the six months that I have owned
it, it has crashed four times and had to be restarted. OTOH, the Windows XP
Professional computers have not crashed even once during that time.

I hear a lot about Windows' instability. I say it is crap. All I can go on
is my own personal experience,

Well, industry experience, by far, supports a contrary position. I do
agree that personal experience is hard to counter. Just the same, Linux
is regarded as being much more reliable, and it has earned that
reputation. This is not to say that Linux can not be crashed. That is,
as you know, simply not true. Having said that, *generally* if Linux is
crashing, it's not the fault of the OS. Are third party drivers being
used (tainted kernel)? Is the hardware of good quality? When was the last
time the memory has been checked for errors? Is ECC memory being used? Is
the power clean? Is it hooked up to a conditioning power unit?

but MS operating systems are the only ones
that I have ever used that can go for more than a few weeks without
crashing. What am I supposed to do? Believe my own experience, or believe a
bunch of anti-social geeks who begin frothing at the mouth and chewing the
carpet at the mere mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates?

Worth noting, uptimes of weeks are considered laughable in IT. Only
semi-recently has Microsoft begun to see uptimes, across the board,
measured in anything other than hours or days. Linux and most unixes,
traditionally measure uptime in months and years. I personally have run
several Linux and BSD servers which had uptimes in years (a little over a
year and the other was 1 1/2 years). Both were rebooted because of power
outages.

So, while personal experience may be telling you a different story, I can
assure you that Microsoft's horrible reputation is very, very, very well
deserved.

Cheers,

Greg Copeland

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:51:32 -0500, Bill Denton wrote:


Most of the time, when a shop has Linux boxes, it doesn't have techs, it has
OS evangelists, who have a vested interest in insuring that Windows boxes
fail. In most instances, if they would spend as much time learning how to
administer Windows boxes as they do playing with Linux boxes they would see
a marked decrease in their failure rate.


That's simply not true in least.

Most Linux heads tend to be geeks, and they tend to put all kinds of geek
crap on their computers. Of course, none of this geek crap is written to
Microsoft standards because geeks know much better ways to do things. If you
put crappy, non-standard software on a machine, it will crash, no matter
what the underlying operating system.

That's simply not true in the least. Applications should not be able to
crash an OS. If it can, that's a serious OS bug. I would say that you've
been exposed to MS' OS a little too long without understanding what else
is out there.


So, which is better: Windows or Linux? That's like asking which is better:
hammers or screwdrivers. In both instances, you are looking at a tool, and
for a given job one may be superior. But it won't be superior for all jobs.

Not really. Both do the same roles. Thusly, it's fair to do a hammer to
hammer or screwdriver to screwdriver comparison.



And consider this: Do you send email? A large chunk of the recipients of
that email get it across networks that weren't set up by Phd/EE's, but were
instead set up by a reasonably intelligent person who saw the need for a
network, read a couple of Windows books, and was able to set up a Windows
network, thanks to the user-friendly Windows installation routines. If they
had needed to rely on Netware, or Linux, or any of the other non-Microsoft
systems those networks would never have been built.

Hate to tell you this, but the vast majority of the 'net is run on
Unix/Linux. It's considered to be the backbone of the 'net. Worse,
because the cost of entry to run windows is so low and they are commonly
used as endpoints on the 'net, windows computers are currently considered
the biggest threat and the greatest plague to date. As an example,
currently, the vast majority of spam actually originates from comprimised
win computers being used as open spam relays. These points have not been
lost in Washington either. Windows computers and their security are
considered a threat to national security. Feel free to check the
Department of Homeland security. Notice that the NSA is happy to develop
using Linux?

Long story short, friendly does not translate to reliability or any other
picture you're trying to paint.



And, in many instances, that's what counts...


You seriously should check your facts.


Cheers,

Greg Copeland

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:08:41 +0000, Kyler Laird wrote:

Bob Noel writes:

The trick is to truly show that the device was indeed rock solid, and for
that history to be actually applicable to future use.

'taint no trick at all; we do it with voting machines now.

Bwahaha...

--kyler


LOL. I doubt the majority here are able to follow the humor there.

Cheers!

In article , Bill Denton wrote:
Most of the time, when a shop has Linux boxes, it doesn't have techs, it has
OS evangelists, who have a vested interest in insuring that Windows boxes
fail. In most instances, if they would spend as much time learning how to
administer Windows boxes as they do playing with Linux boxes they would see
a marked decrease in their failure rate.

I have spent a great deal of time making sure Windows boxes are properly
configured and stay up. It's a goal I pursue with great zeal. If the
boxes stay up, the users don't whine. Users that are seen and not heard
because their computers aren't broken mean I have a nice day.

Most Linux heads tend to be geeks, and they tend to put all kinds of geek
crap on their computers. Of course, none of this geek crap is written to
Microsoft standards because geeks know much better ways to do things. If you
put crappy, non-standard software on a machine, it will crash, no matter
what the underlying operating system.

That is wrong. The only software that should be able to actually crash a
machine is stuff running in kernel-land. User-land software, no matter
how badly written, should NEVER be able to crash the OS. That's the
whole point of protected mode on Intel ia32 (i.e. 386 and up)
processors. If an application causes an OS to crash, then *there is a
bug in the OS*.

And consider this: Do you send email? A large chunk of the recipients of
that email get it across networks that weren't set up by Phd/EE's, but were
instead set up by a reasonably intelligent person who saw the need for a
network, read a couple of Windows books, and was able to set up a Windows
network, thanks to the user-friendly Windows installation routines. If they
had needed to rely on Netware, or Linux, or any of the other non-Microsoft
systems those networks would never have been built.

That is woefully inaccurate. You've certainly been able to set up RedHat
through the GUI only with just a few mouse clicks for a number of years.
The problem with Windows isn't its stability (almost ALL the actual
Windows NT crashes since NT4.0 I've witnessed were caused by bad
hardware with just a few notable exceptions which have since been
fixed). Part of the problem with setting up Windows, especially in a
corporate environment where you want to deploy many machines, and run
arbitrary updates on many machines is there is *so* much stuff that can
ONLY be done in the GUI and simply cannot be scripted out of the box
without downloading a whole heap of third-party stuff.

Windows is still a complex system. The consequences of 'normal users'
setting up Windows themselves (especially in a corporate environment) is
the spread of worms, insecurely-set-up servers and a network that's
difficult to maintain when it's in. A Windows administrator must be
every bit as competent, smart and devious as his Unix counterpart.
Companies who think Windows admins are less expensive are often hiring
reboot monkeys. You get what you pay for.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"