Re: computer network on Discovery unreliable?

Jochem Huhmann <joh@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:m2iryhnuvw.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> "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?

No, but then again, the entire onboard network of PC laptops isn't
mission-critical either (as I've already said). If anything I would
describe it as an expendable convenience. NASA got along just fine
without laptops in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo and early shuttle eras.

>> 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?

They send up Word files all the time. I doubt many, if any, of the files
transferred up use VBA. That's not the point. The point is that to
maintain 100% compatibility, you can't just convert the onboard network
to Linux; you need to convert the ground network as well. That's
thousands of PCs. And there are many files on the ground network that
*do* rely on M$ features.

>> 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.

Yes, you're right. I would generalize the statement to say that it's
stupid to store data in any proprietary format you don't own. Storing
data in M$ formats would be fine if they weren't proprietary; likewise,
storing data in proprietary formats would be fine if you were the owner.
Otherwise, you're locking up your data and handing the key to someone who
may not have your best interests in mind.

That said, NASA/JSC's decision to rely on M$ for non-mission-critical PCs
was made years ago (~1996, IIRC), and will not easily be reversed. The
cost of merely changing the OSes pales alongside the cost of converting
the data.

>> 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,

Huh? I already told you they run Solaris on the machines that are
mission-critical.

> 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.

The machines have to be rebooted frequently anyway, due to the radiation
environment. You can usually count on at least one machine going down on
every pass through the South Atlantic Anomaly, regardless of what OS it
runs. Changing OSes won't eliminate reboots, it will only eliminate the M
$-specific reboots.

>> 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.

Even NASA isn't silly enough to use OE - they use the full-blown Outlook.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.

Quantcast