The depths some people sink to...

[Hielor]

Two choices: Make computing accessible to everyone and give the option for geeks to be safe(r), or make computing only accessible to geeks who know how to do things.

One of these makes sense from a commercial standpoint, one of them doesn't. One of them gets us toward a world where computers are universal, and the other one keeps us in the dark ages.

You're a smart person, I bet you can figure out which is which.

 

[Omhra]

universal with zero system (lords) reporting, probing or any other non user specified and intended connections please.

 

[Hielor]

universal with zero system (lords) reporting, probing or any other non user specified and intended connections please.

Can't have universal computing if you require the user to specify everything. Either the computer does stuff for you, or it's not universal.

 

[Omhra]

Can't have universal computing if you require the user to specify everything. Either the computer does stuff for you, or it's not universal.

That is a stretch... and frankly quite ridiculous.

How you take what I said and place it on this sleek slope? I don't know...

I suppose it should have windows media player too and IE with their countless holes.... or its not universal...:rofl: thanks for the laugh.
Remember the antitrust law suits? http://www.cnet.com/topic-news/antitrust/microsoft-windows-media-player.html
And
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=Us+v+microsoft&btnG=Go&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=atr&proxystylesheet=atr&site=atr_collection

But eh? you are happy. So who am I to argue...

On one hand you have governments arguing what I argue... and on the other we have you and a bunch of lawyers arguing what makes them money...

 

[tl8]

Please calm down

 

[Hielor]

That is a stretch... and frankly quite ridiculous.

How you take what I said and place it on this sleek slope? I don't know...

I suppose it should have windows media player too and IE with their countless holes.... or its not universal...:rofl: thanks for the laugh.
Remember the antitrust law suits? http://www.cnet.com/topic-news/antitrust/microsoft-windows-media-player.html
And
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=Us+v+microsoft&btnG=Go&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=atr&proxystylesheet=atr&site=atr_collection

But eh? you are happy. So who am I to argue...

On one hand you have governments arguing what I argue... and on the other we have you and a bunch of lawyers arguing what makes them money...
Perhaps you have what you deserve.
Now quickly retort, if you will.

Ok, either you have the computer do at least some things for you, or you don't have universal computing. The elitist stature that you're taking doesn't work in real life.

And yes, Microsoft does what makes them money. They're a corporation. That's what corporations do.

The anti-trust about IE coming pre-installed is ridiculous. If you don't want IE on your computer, you can get Firefox easily enough. But guess what? You can't (okay, you probably can, but 95% of computer users can't) get Firefox without already having a browser on your computer. Having IE come pre-installed actually increases the number of users for say, Firefox, because otherwise you'd have to go out to the store and get an internet browser.

Oh, wait. They don't sell browsers at the store.

 

[Omhra]

You might find this interesting
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/062008-ms-antitrust.html

You have to watch these corporations closely...

Understand, please, that is is not the browser, per se, that is the problem. Is all the background transactions, of which the user is mostly unaware, that become the problem.
...
On a Linux box you don't have these transactions thus is much more difficult to hack into it... and almost impossible to hit a vast number at once.
So you can have internet and networking without all these potential exploitations.
Or you can have your box unplugged to be sure its not talking to someone.

 

[cjp]

Let me dig up some old posts from my previous visit to this thread:

For a submarine or any other isolated critical system like MCC-H (where the critical systems aren't on Windows, they're on Linux), ironically, security on the computers doesn't matter. Security is done by restricting who can get to the computer. Since there's no way to remotely access them, that's not a worry.

That's exactly what I tried to say in my first post. Therefore, OS security should no longer be a topic in this thread (unless someone disagrees). I don't know about you people, but instead of the infinite "windows bashing" or "windows vs. Linux" or whatever, I'd like to know: "what on earth is windows doing in a submarine?"

I think this is more on-topic:

When you're talking about the development of a multi-million pound system, 12 or so Windows licences in inconsequential. It also depends on who you are referring to as "everybody". As you state, it doesn't make much of a difference to the user, but if the development team already has a lot of knowledge of Windows, its configuration and components, then it's a lot cheaper, easier and safer to develop on something you know than something that you have to learn. Then there is also the addition of modules that are already built for that platform and existing code-base or alignment with future strategies and platforms.

To reply to that:
You're probably right about the licensing costs being nothing compared to the rest; my argument was more like "everything else being equal...".

The argument of the development team having knowledge of Windows is the same as the usual "we're used to it" argument, but with the developer instead of the end user. So, the value of this argument also diminishes when the system is less similar to a typical desktop windows. But maybe the core components used by the developer are the same, and in that case you have a point (assuming there are more windows than UNIX developers).

Now something else: maybe the licensing costs are nothing compared to the developing costs, but the developing costs need to be spread out over the period of time before the software needs to be replaced due to "byte rot". I think it requires a lot of discipline from developers on windows to not use closed standards, or obfuscated ones like the win32 API. Well-written, portable software tends to be cheaper in the long term, as it doesn't need to be replaced too soon.

Having said that, the change they made on the submarines from custom systems to a generic windows is probably an improvement on this point.

 

[Hielor]

The argument of the development team having knowledge of Windows is the same as the usual "we're used to it" argument, but with the developer instead of the end user. So, the value of this argument also diminishes when the system is less similar to a typical desktop windows. But maybe the core components used by the developer are the same, and in that case you have a point (assuming there are more windows than UNIX developers).

Actually, in the development world, "we're used to it" is an excellent argument. You won't always have the same developers on a project, and in fact for government agencies (if there's a civilian contractor making the software, or probably also if it's a purely military development) you're likely to have high turnover of programmers.

It's a lot easier to get an incoming programmer up to speed if you're using well-established APIs which they may already be familiar with, rather than fully proprietary methods. So it's better than some completely proprietary system.

As for whether it should have been Windows or not, it really doesn't matter. Personally I would've chosen Linux for this situation, but I'm sure Windows can do everything just as well.

 

[agentgonzo]

Well-written, portable software tends to be cheaper in the long term, as it doesn't need to be replaced too soon.

Only if the need for the software to be portable, or code-reuse is required. Otherwise it's a lot of overhead for absolutely no gain. Command Systems for the navy are normally bespoke and fitted to only one or two classes of vessel. Twenty years later when it's time for a retrofit (if they get one at all), the systems and hardware available have changed so much that very little, if any, of the original code base is relevant.

 

[Usquanigo]

The argument of the development team having knowledge of Windows is the same as the usual "we're used to it" argument, but with the developer instead of the end user. So, the value of this argument also diminishes when the system is less similar to a typical desktop windows. But maybe the core components used by the developer are the same, and in that case you have a point (assuming there are more windows than UNIX developers).

While I see that you have "add-on developer" next to your username, the quoted section above (as well as a few others) tells me that you've not really done and "serious" coding (new applications, CODECs, drivers, etc).

It goes well beyond programming concepts, or even languages, it gets into development tools, work environment, and also everything else that Helior said.

From the coding side, it doesn't matter how much of the user interface is actually there, that only affects how the application looks to the end user. Everything that the devs use is the same regardless, and that is HUGE.

Further, as I've tried to point out, it's not all about the desktop. Now, maybe I missed it, did they state that they are using a desktop OS? The Windows names applies to server OS's, desktop OS's (which ARE using much of the same code, but are different enough to serve the specific purpose), micro-devices, embeded devices, and real time computing. ....at least. They are all quite different, yet still called Windows. But the arguments aimed at the desktop OS can't be leveled against the embeded stuff.

Also, as for bit rot, EVERY OS suffers that. It's inevitable. Windows (desktop and server variety) has gotten much better about that, and it's not really the issue it once was. Now, when you have an image you can either blow down to the HDD, or even just swap drives with a brand-new image in a matter of seconds, and especially when you still have the issue with every other OS, that becomes a totally moot point.

 

[Omhra]

Apparently XP for subs is there to mitigate cost and to be easier to train for...

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/british-navy-releases-windows-for-submarines-msft

http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows_for_submarines_has_shipped_sorry

 

[cjp]

While I see that you have "add-on developer" next to your username, the quoted section above (as well as a few others) tells me that you've not really done and "serious" coding (new applications, CODECs, drivers, etc).

I didn't realize I was a topic in this thread, but you're clearly asking for it a second time:
Yes, I developed some add-ons. While they involved C++ programming, I have to admit they are not really big projects. However, outside Orbiter, I had some other projects as well:

• I developed the game Ultimate Stunts. Quite a big project for a single programmer I'd say. Involves OpenGL, physics simulation, GUI design, 3D sound, network programming, AI, and multi-platform programming.
• I developed a medium-size financial application for a student society. Financial means it needs to be safe, so it involves redundancy, backups, logging, being fool-proof etc.
• I worked on a commercial CAD application for several years. After working for about three years on the second version (which was created by another programmer), I started creating a third version from scratch, because the second version reached the limits of its design. The third version is now completely scriptable with Python (while the core is written in C++), and because we needed a restart anyway, I also made it multi-platform, using wxWidgets instead of MFC, and using an XML-based file format.
• I created a fast JPEG encoder and decoder for a special piece of hardware, and created the start of an MPEG codec for the same hardware.
• I created the vision system of a humanoid robot joining the 2008 Robocup. As we were using special embedded hardware, this involved developing our own drivers for the cameras we used. I have to admit the actual driver development was done by another guy, but I know how to make a Linux kernel module, and I know where to find the documentation for the rest. And, in fact, I did the last bug-fix which made the driver work properly (as always, fixing the bug was trivial, but the other guy didn't realize / believe what the problem was)

For the submarine discussion: I think the counter-arguments against my arguments are valid. Here I go with Hielor: " Personally I would've chosen Linux for this situation, but I'm sure Windows can do everything just as well. "

 

[Urwumpe]

cjp: I think Bloodspray will now complain that you have never developed a submarine command system in your life and are thus not allowed to have any opinion.

Honestly... how stupid is that? It does not matter who says it, but what he says.

 

[cjp]

http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows_for_submarines_has_shipped_sorry

This is interesting:

In 1990, it was decided to extend the SMCS to other submarine classes and that the new command system would use UNIX as its base operating system. Because of the Ada architecture, problems arose when the technicians tried to map the SMCS to run-time processes of UNIX. Solaris and SPARC machines were finally selected for Multi Function Consoles. The central nodes kept their original architecture in Ada.
...
Windows was chosen even after the USS Yorktown accident in 1997, in the US. The ship was crippled after the sysadmin entered invalid data

So, apparently, they had an old SMCS application written in Ada, and they ported a part of it to UNIX (Solaris), and kept the original system for another part. And they were having trouble when porting to UNIX. And in 1997 the system turned out not to be fool-proof enough.

When I first saw the word UNIX, I thought: they could have saved money by using Linux for the new system, as it would allow them to re-use the old UNIX applications. But I guess that's exactly what they did NOT want, as they probably want to get rid of the old system completely.

Also, I guess (it's just a guess) that because of their negative experience with the UNIX-based SMCS, UNIX itself (and anything related, like Linux) got a bad reputation in the minds of the people taking the decisions. And windows is the only frequently used non-UNIX platform these days, so I can see why they decided this...

 

[Usquanigo]

cjp: I think Bloodspray will now complain that you have never developed a submarine command system in your life and are thus not allowed to have any opinion.

Honestly... how stupid is that? It does not matter who says it, but what he says.

lol, who pissed in your wheaties guy?

He can claim anything he wants, I mean, this is the internet afterall. But anyone who's ever done any serious development would not make claims like he did (such as "The argument of the development team having knowledge of Windows is the same as the usual "we're used to it" argument, but with the developer instead of the end user. So, the value of this argument also diminishes when the system is less similar to a typical desktop windows.").

Just to explain, I don't really know or care (in any negative sense) about anyone here. You're all just words and usernames (I'm too new). But that also means you're all equal. And the Windows bashing going on is both lame, and based on utter fallacy in every respect. That stuff really gets old, as does the elitism that goes along with it (as so clearly evident in Omhra). So when someone decides to make anti-Windows claims or comments, if I'm in the mood, I will pick the comments, and the context surrounding them (even if that means the commentER) apart.

I never claimed to know what he's done, merely what his comments suggest, and if he's honest about his claims, then something else must be going on (insane isolation in types of projects, bump on the head, chemicals, who knows).

Not really sure why you're seemingly uptight here.

 

[Urwumpe]

But anyone who's ever done any serious development would not make claims like he did (such as "The argument of the development team having knowledge of Windows is the same as the usual "we're used to it" argument, but with the developer instead of the end user. So, the value of this argument also diminishes when the system is less similar to a typical desktop windows.").

Actually, you just show that your own views are mostly based on "I must be right".

His statement is pretty much correct, though I wouldn't pull it ad extreme. The majority of the APIs will remain the same. But the important details are totally different. If you for example spend most of the development work on drivers for special hardware, this process has absolutely nothing in common anymore with making applications. The Driver development under Windows is (From my personal experience, I had to do it once) as different to application development, as day and night. And this difference just starts with you using the DDK instead of the SDK.

PS: I think you can NEVER bash windows enough. Just as much as any Operating system on this world deserves the same treatment. Maybe except MultiTOS and MINIX.

 

[Usquanigo]

lol, I can't help it that I am.

Lighten up dude, seriously.

His statement is pretty much correct, though I wouldn't pull it ad extreme. The majority of the APIs will remain the same. But the important details are totally different. If you for example spend most of the development work on drivers for special hardware, this process has absolutely nothing in common anymore with making applications. The Driver development under Windows is (From my personal experience, I had to do it once) as different to application development, as day and night. And this difference just starts with you using the DDK instead of the SDK.

For drivers, yes, but when you get into tools, environments, best practices, APIs, and so on and so on. It is a different thing going to a different twist on even a similar language on a different platform with different tools, different work environments and different APIs and innards.

Not insurmountable by any stretch. But I refer you back to Heliors point (who said the same thing and I see you didn't go after him ).

PS: I think you can NEVER bash windows enough. Just as much as any Operating system on this world deserves the same treatment. Maybe except MultiTOS and MINIX.

And perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Nobody bashes Linux or Mac (well, ok, I take aim at the Macintrash when I can lol), just Windows. And the fact is, it's really not bad, and certainly doesn't deserve the hatred it gets. (see the penalty of leadership I posted previously)

But in that spirit, here's something for ya

(yes, I posted it before, can't remember if it's this thread or another, but it's damn good anyway lol)

 

[Urwumpe]

Linux has been the victim of fewer attacks than Windows because (1) it actually is more secure, but also (2) most attackers think hitting Windows offers a bigger bang for the buck so Windows simply gets attacked more. As I did 20 years ago, I still fervently believe that the only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features.

Now, instead of revealing the person who said that (not that you couldn't quickly find out yourself), do you think this person has no clue on what this person is talking about?

 

[Usquanigo]

Now, instead of revealing the person who said that (not that you couldn't quickly find out yourself), do you think this person has no clue on what this person is talking about?

'he' is wrong about Linux vs Windows security. Windows is not insecure anymore so than Linux is secure.

Features can be a problem from a security standpoint, but I refer you back to previous comments I've made (and Helior more or less has as well) - (to paraphrase Helior) you can have powerful, flexible, easy computing, or you can have secure computing. One gets us cheap, plentiful, powerful systems because it creates a market, and triggers benefits upon benefits down the road as a result, the other keeps us soldering our own MITS Altairs together and trying to win the Homebrew Computing Club's stripped screw award for finding a use for a useless machine.

Here's an example for you - 2 cars, one is locked with the windows up, the other is unlocked with the windows down, both in the dealer. Do you buy the locked one because it's currently residing in a "more secure" statet? Is it REALLY the cars fault?

It's the man, not the machine. You can't compare stock for stock and claim them to be absolute determinants of the thing in question overall in anything OTHER than that stock state (which in the case of an OS is nothing at all (as it's too easy to change)).