"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:rAEXj.145638$rd2.122813@pd7urf3no...


>> 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?

You have a point, I suspect that they use it because it isn't any of those
things.

> Seems kind of stupid as simplicity also has value in reliably, real time
> response and maintenance.

It does, probably the reason they don't like big monolithic kernels much.

> If for nothing else, less to go wrong.

True, but if you are doing a tactical display you would have to add so much
code to pSOS/vxWorks that you would introduce more bugs than there are in an
OS that has been in use (and tested) by millions for several years.

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

Shock protection, they are used in far worse places than a war ship.
They used to have HD in cruise missiles incase you didn't know (probably
still do in some).

>
> 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.

It has, but that would be classified.

>
> 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.
>
>
>