Windows and Norton...
|
| Author | Content | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| techiem2 Aug 28, 2008 11:29 AM EST |
and the thing is still in the air? So let's get this straight. We have people on a multi billion dollar space station running windows machines as administrator? Why have I suddenly lost faith in the space program? |
||||
| jdixon Aug 28, 2008 12:16 PM EST |
> Why have I suddenly lost faith in the space program? Challenger and Columbia didn't do it for you? |
||||
| techiem2 Aug 28, 2008 12:39 PM EST |
good point. And the mars rover.... |
||||
| jezuch Aug 28, 2008 2:13 PM EST |
Technically it's not air anymore :)
[HYPERLINK@ars.userfriendly.org] |
||||
| zenarcher Aug 28, 2008 2:15 PM EST |
I think it was part of a NASA experiment to see if porn surfing would infect a computer in zero gravity :; | ||||
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 28, 2008 2:36 PM EST |
I remember a great article, mostly photos, that I probably found through LXer, about how NASA uses TONS of Red Hat. Gotta get that on the Space Station. I wonder how the Wi-Fi is up there. | ||||
| Bob_Robertson Aug 28, 2008 4:32 PM EST |
I worked at NASA for 7 years. It's just as corrupt, inefficient and greedy as the post office, or your local DMV, whatever. It's a bureaucracy far more interested in continuing its own bureaucratic existence than in anything else. I was a minarchist until I got some experience with government bureaucracy. No longer do I think "reforming" is any good, since all it does is perpetuate the bureaucracy. The best thing that NASA could do for space exploration is DISBAND. Recommended reading: Victor Koman's _Kings of the High Frontier_ [HYPERLINK@www.abebooks.com] |
||||
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 28, 2008 5:15 PM EST |
Here's the article on NASA using lots of Red Hat and Fedora: [HYPERLINK@jaboutboul.blogspot.com] Turns out I found it through Digg. |
||||
| tuxchick Aug 28, 2008 5:33 PM EST |
Windows and Norton go together like flies and manure. Yeah, I have a bad attitude about the so-called security industry- I think they're parasites. | ||||
| tracyanne Aug 28, 2008 8:09 PM EST |
Well if you want an argument, you won't get one from me. |
||||
| nikkels Aug 28, 2008 9:03 PM EST |
When I read it yesterday, I only had one sentence in mind >>How stupid can one be....after all these years/ nikkels |
||||
| jezuch Aug 29, 2008 1:13 AM EST |
Well, considering that US space program is stagnant and can't do much anymore, but costs as much as usual, it's pretty plain obvious. If it wasn't, I would be deeply shocked that space shuttles are *still* considered top-notch technology and suitable for space flights. But somehow I'm not. |
||||
| gus3 Aug 29, 2008 1:34 AM EST |
The Space Shuttle program (and its peers) use "latest and greatest" only where necessary. Older technologies are better understood, including their failure modes. In other words: Things break. The older something is, the more we know about how it breaks. Newer, untested technologies that break in poorly-understood ways are unnecessarily hazardous. |
||||
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 29, 2008 1:08 PM EST |
Back when I was still doing Windows installs, I was using Avast for antivirus. We use eTrust at the office with XP, and while I don't administer it, I also haven't had any problems with it. No viruses either. I'm still getting over the fact that they're using Windows on a space station. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!