"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:g0m270$h4o$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:KooXj.143874$Cj7.67171@pd7urf2no...
>
>
>> I remember reading that at the time it happened. I would have thought
>> the navy would have used something much more stable for critical
>> operations. Also more secure, like OpenBSD or something. Also cluster
>> them for fail over.
>
> Clustering doesn't help with application software faults.
> Its a common mistake people make, like thinking RAID is a substitute for
> backups.
>
>
>> Using NT was stupid, could have been real bad if they failed in an active
>> combat war zone at sea.
>
> Any application software failing during combat could be a problem.
> That is why they like mature software on military systems.

But this is my point. But maybe not clear.

Why use a complex, hard to review and less stable OS than say pSOS or
vxWorks or even a skinny down version of RTOS like Linux? Why use a complex
high maintenance insecure OS like NT? Seems kind of stupid as simplicity
also has value in reliably, real time response and maintenance. If for
nothing else, less to go wrong.

The need and use of hard drives also bothers me. Get a minor hit vibrating
through the hull and the heads crash...

Agree with clustering, that is primarily for hardware faults. But it would
be nice to know a war ship with nukes has more than one frail way of command
and control.

Hey Scotty, come up and replace this NT DLL or hard drive so we can launch
these damn things...whew...scary thought with a SU 30 or SU 47 coming at
you.