Re: computer network on Discovery unreliable?

"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Should have more than enough oomph to run some Linux. Seriously. Could
>> easily save some man-hours per flight. Give those machines and the
>> functionality required to me and I'll work something out for a
>> reasonable price.
>
> The number one functionality required is 100% compatibility with the PC
> network in the control center, which runs Windows. Especially
> compatibility with MS Office.

Is compability with MS Word, MS Excel and MS Powerpoint
mission-critical? If it is, this has to change. I do not think that
there is any need to rely on that. Hard to imagine otherwise.

> I love Linux, run it dual-boot at home. But all of the open-source office
> suites for Linux absolutely suck at importing MS Office files that use
> any features more advanced than basic formatting. Use any kind of macros
> and you're *** outta luck.

Yep, this is right for anything not MS Office. But do you run
mission-critical parts of a mission on that? Again, I can't believe
that. What do they transfer up and down? Email, PDF's, JPG's and data
for proprietary software, yes. Word files, Basic code, no. Do they?

> The reasonable price for converting to Linux starts looking
> unreasonable real quick once you factor in the time required to
> convert all the existing files and proofread them line-by- line (and
> testing all the macros) to make sure nothing got fubar'ed in the
> process.

When you're relying on MS specific stuff and can't convert that as a
matter of routine to other formats you're fucked anyway. I accept that
argument in typical mis-managed office settings (I *have* seen companies
running on MS-Excel specific code, but not for long), but not in space
flight.

> I know, I know, it's all because evil M$ keeps their file formats
> proprietary and keeps changing them so that the open-source developers
> can't keep up. Wah. Sometimes life isn't fair.

The problem is not keeping up, the problem is integration beyond any
sane limits and missing any interoperability with sane standards. Again,
have a mail-server and UUCP and FTP up there and all this manual
tinkering goes away. Why they're not running any Unix-based system on
their machines is the question, not if they're running Linux or Windows.
You can even make a recent MS OS behave itself, but rarely without
kicking it in the *** twice a day and doing a lot of clicking and
restarting. And do that on not so recent hardware and you're forced to
such many compromises that this is eating much time over and over again.

>> Why don't they try at least Solaris for these?
>
> They do, on the PCS laptops (the ones that do "real work": sending
> commands to ISS). The ones used for "office automation" run Windows
> precisely because they're not critical. Even NASA isn't silly enough to
> trust M$ with anything life-or-death.

I would really like to know what "office automation" means here. Do they
send up and down Excel files and macros? Really?

> Anyway, this will be a moot point once the current laptops are replaced
> with A31p's, which are P-IV laptops that can run newer versions of
> Windows.

Well, Ok. Everything from win2k upwards is such an improvement that it
is almost usable. Still, imaging a Shuttle crew wrestling with OE makes
my nails curl.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
.