Why does NASA use linux instead of Windows ?

[dasein]

Footnote: the HST's 486 is a relatively recent upgrade, installed during the final maintenance mission. For most of its life, HST ran on a 386 (SX, IIRC)

Mardybear would love it.

[tomazzi]

it is also not the complete story that "Windows fails dramatically" and maybe for your case "and it crashed so easily,"...
That may be true for Win3.1/95/98 but not for most NT-based systems and derivatives from that (like Win-NT, 2000, XP, 7).
On my work and private those systems hardly crashed. I think they learned from Linux....

NT? - definitely not.
Win 2000, XP and newer, which were/are based on a "borrowed" (I say: stolen) NT (that is: VMS) technology - yes, they "seem" to be more stable....
But they are not.

Probably the only true "technology" "invented" by Microsoft is to cheat the customer, so that he will think that the system is not crashing anymore - by restarting crashed services/processes in the background. LOL, just LOL

The most "successful" change was in explorer.exe - starting from win xp/2k it is restarted when it crashes, so the user can only see the effect of re-loading desktop icons (instant unexpected re-drawing of all of them). Thanks to that, the user is no longer leaved with a dead blank screen, where the only option is to run a task manager and manually start the explorer.exe process again.

Regards.

PS. I'm not a Microshit hater per se - I'm just laughing at their miserable efforts to build a reliable OS - it took them over 2 decades, and still windows is a crap - slow, unreliable, memory hog with tons of security holes*, tens of thousands of bugs with each release... and many, many more "funny" things.


(*) According to stats published by anti-virus software vendors, 2-3 thousands of malware, trojans and other classes of viruses' signatures are added to a databases each single day (typically). The minimum that I've ever seen over few past years was about 250 (single day).
f.e. at the time of this writting there was 8706 new definitions added to a Comodo database: (24.10.2015)
https://www.comodo.com/home/internet-se ... 5f52808a51

[andre@home]

If Linux would sell itself so well... Windows would already be completely dead.... it is'nt as the Linux world was not convincing enough to sell it superior quaility..?
So let us keep our head upright but not wear too big shoes that do not fit us yet.... or scream to loud ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_sha ... ng_systems

With 1.74% use... Linux just beats Vista... in the "Desktop/Laptop operating system browsing statistics"

Let's try to do better but not with this attitude which is not based on facts, not a scientific approach and certainly not discussed in balance.

I like Linux a lot, but in several things Windows is still better.

Remember: not all consumers are IT-specialists..... the fear to start with Linux is big, right or not that's not the question, it is the reality. Change that when you want to have a challenge and prove your ratings of success here...

[GarryRicketson]

Kind of drifting in topic, but I think that was part of the plan, First create the OS, next create the viruses, then when the people have bought the OS software, and they find it constantly being destroyed by the viruses, the same software writers created, well that opens a whole other profitable market, selling the ant-virus software, needed to keep the expensive OS running.
Like I said , they are "buisness men", the intention and goal is to produce products that the people depend on, and make sure those products do not last very long, so that the people have to buy more, etc.
----------------------
I smoke a lot, but I do not pay for my tobacco, I grow it, but any way that is another topic, but anyway, no money needed, yes , I still pay, but with work, it is a lot of work to produce a good crop.
But similar in that the cigarette manufactures worked very hard at coming up with recipes, that include chemicals to make them even more addicting, Why ? to make more money, they are "buisness men", as well.

Using Linux/Debian, and opensource free software, is similar, I don't know enough to actually create my own OS, but any way, the products are of better quality, simply because they are built and designed to last, there still are lots of changes all ways needed, because the hardware, and technology is constantly changing,
In many ways Windows is not really that bad, I had to appear to be good, in order to get as many people "hooked" as they can. Just because things appear to be good, does not make them good though.

[dilberts_left_nut]

Well, yeah. They are rocket scientists.

Pah!

Rocket science is easy - just add more thrust until it flies ...

It's the Orbital Dynamics and Slingshot Trajectory guys that impress me.

[andre@home]

Kind of drifting in topic, but I think that was part of the plan, First create the OS, next create the viruses, then when the people have bought the OS software, and they find it constantly being destroyed by the viruses, the same software writers created, well that opens a whole other profitable market, selling the ant-virus software, needed to keep the expensive OS running.
Like I said , they are "buisness men", the intention and goal is to produce products that the people depend on, and make sure those products do not last very long, so that the people have to buy more, etc..

When Linux would take over Windows place.. virus for Linux will developed? Why.....? As it is then the largest OS and a special group of people are interested in stealing data/money from that group. It is as simple as that. A few moths ago there was a security conference in The Hague and one of the leading men told that a very small but very smart group of specialist can take over any system, including Linux, all over the world. Such a case takes weeks, months of preparation, but at the end they are successfull. As long as those people are working on the right side in order to protect our safety, this is not a problem... but some are working for criminal organizations or secret services who have other, less positive goals...

With the tobacco industry: you're right. It is even proven. I think the comparison with Operating Systems is a different one and so not correct.

And I also agree with your remark "In many ways Windows is not really that bad", I would even say in some cases even better for arguments given before.

[tomazzi]

With 1.74% use... Linux just beats Vista... in the "Desktop/Laptop operating system browsing statistics"

I'm sure that You're able to read that wiki page with understanding - that is, Android has 48% of end-user systems, while windows has only 14% ...
This is of course because the PC (desktop/laptop) market is dying...

1st million (10^6) of world's biggest servers are running Linux-based systems...

This means, that Linux-based systems are creating a huge surface for attacks - but as for now, viruses for Linux are almost non-existent, and even viruses which are targeting Android are Java-based...

Kind of drifting in topic, but I think that was part of the plan, First create the OS, next create the viruses, then when the people have bought the OS software, and they find it constantly being destroyed by the viruses, the same software writers created, well that opens a whole other profitable market, selling the ant-virus software, needed to keep the expensive OS running.

Yes, I agree that this is a very probable explanation - most of currently active viruses are using quite old holes, which could be patched with relatively little effort - but, Microshit is totally aware of the fact, that security business brings billions of dollars each single year...

Regards.

[andre@home]

I really think that it is just a matter of time that virus makers et al will move the the largest OS at that time. So when this will be Linux... we need more protection and we should not do as the ostrich....
I refer to that ostrich, which is known for its habit of burying its head in the sand.

[GarryRicketson]

So when this will be Linux... we need more protection and we should not do as the ostrich....
I refer to that ostrich, which is known for its habit of burying its head in the sand

Well, don't say "we", I do watch my system very carefully, but I understand, "I know what you mean". Many people do, stick their heads in a hole, and pretend , nothing will happen.
There is plenty of security, and methods of protecting a linux system from viruses, hackers, kiddie scripts, and all of that.
And these days, I think one needs to really take a close look at what is in the ISO they down load, when they download and install the OS, it may have things they would rather not have in their system, and I mean, after all, it is the OS, it could be designed to do anything, ...

[dasein]

...just add more thrust until it flies ...

Well, maybe not quite that easy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EnUQltR9A

Hijack: Back in the '50s, my mother worked for a company who developed some launch-critical part (stabilizer/gyroscope, IIRC) for the Titan (the re-purposed ICBM that powered the Gemini missions). Fast-forward to the 1960s, when every space launch was a big deal and televised. Every time we'd watch a Gemini mission launch, she'd get a far away look in her eyes as the rocket lifted off the launchpad, and then kinda shake her head and mutter something along the lines of, "I remember when it (meaning the rocket) couldn't do that."

[dilberts_left_nut]

...just add more thrust until it flies ...

Well, maybe not quite that easy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EnUQltR9A

Yeah, but I bet all the rocket scientists in those bunkers were immediately pointing their fingers squarely at the rocket engineers.

[dasein]

Yeah, but I bet all the rocket scientists in those bunkers were immediately pointing their fingers squarely at the rocket engineers.

Well, to hear my mother tell it (and she was there), it was more like everybody looking dumbfounded at everybody else and wailing, "WHY??!! That should have worked!"

[praka123]

It's foolish to believe that such a big corporation cannot secure their OS (Windows). They created a eco-system and a paid model which is cunning and unscrupulous on Windows users. As someone mentioned earlier - created Windows to be purposefully weak in security and internals so as to support virus creators, antivirus/anti-malware and other hundreds of performance/tuning software to exist and thrive. Really good for the software developers. Also, a psychological thing is there - that the Windows user with all these antivirus/firewall/performance tuning apps started to believe that he/she is secure and using the best operating system . Also, such users usually are fans who underestimate the *NIX like OS since they are psychologically conditioned by the Windows eco-system that you are "secured"!

The case of rootkits and NSA backdoors on Windows was one of the key elements discussed when I started using internet (circa 97 or so). It is still relevant and Microsoft is just revealing it's true nature with Windows 10 and the open telemetry details.

[andre@home]

Let's stay awake else more is this is the future for Linux too.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12 ... for-years/

How long will it take before something real big happens that may kill Windows for ever? Criminals that move away the complete account/ all the money of a bank/pension company.... let a nuclear plant melt down.....?

Well then there is still work to do on the Linux side to make it more secure than it is now....
https://www.google.nl/search?q=linux+ba ... 3&ie=UTF-8

[NFT5]

The real answer to the question in the title of this thread? Cost.

Sure, Linux offers inherent advantages in terms of security and reliability but changes to organisation wide OS deployments tend to coincide with major MS moves that make a previous version, like XP, which is widely deployed, redundant. The shiny new replacement then had hardware requirements that were well above much of what organisations had out there, so they were looking at upgrading both hardware and OS. Whether you have 10 computers or 100,000 that becomes a significant cost.

Changing over to Linux means that there is some labour cost but that is one off and can be well offset by the savings even on discounted MS licencing. The savings in not having to upgrade hardware, extending the life of existing machines and reducing the hardware requirements for new machines are enormous in both absolute and relative terms.

For example, in my own small business, the end of XP meant a cash cost of around $7000 to move to Win7 and upgrade some hardware. Not much money in terms of the size of a government department budget, but significant for us. I probably blew most of that in time, researching and implementing Debian as a replacement OS, but the difference is that it was mostly time outside of the normal operation of the business and had no real impact on our cash flow. Aside from differences in scale I think that the experience for NASA, and all those other organisations listed in the Wikipedia entry, would have been similar.

What I did find interesting was that, for those organisations which had made the decision to move to Linux but then experienced low take up rates, or in fact later reversed their decision, the primary factor in successful Linux deployment was education of the users. Deciding on a user interface that is easy for your users to transition to and then training them to use it effectively is, I believe, paramount in the success of a project like this.

[GarryRicketson]

the end of XP meant a cash cost of around $7000 to move to Win7

Wow, I find it hard to believe any one would pay that much, for Mal-ware that does not work well, based on the current exchange rate : that is in mx pesos, 105,000.00 mx
And for something that does not work well,..???
I made a small donation, as much as I can afford to Debian, and I am sure a government organization like NASA, does make some large contributions, I don't use Debian, because I want a "free meal" I use it because of the quality, even if it was a commercial OS, and it cost some thing, I would buy it. But I would never even use Windows,none of the versions, even if they were free as in "free lunch", so any way, I am not convinced that NASA uses linux, just because it is "free", but of course the economic factor, is a important factor, combined with the cost of the OS, then the additional expenses due to down time, when the mal-ware fails, additional software needed to support it, keep it secure , etc. that does make windows, a non-solution, or not a option, even more so for a business, where a economics are crucial .
I know what you mean though, here, where I used to work, I was just a "stone cutter", crafts man, ...but also the computer, etc, is a hobby I am not any kind of "high tech" engineer, or pro,..Any way, to make a long story short,.. when my boss realized I enjoy doing things with computers, he bought me a small acer laptop, at that time it had been close to 5 years, that did not even have my own computer,..so anyway, the laptop came with windows XP, on it, I was happy, but as soon as I realized how useless the windows XP is, the same or even worse then the earlier versions, well, I got online, and downloaded "free dos", and "bye bye windows",..put the "freedos" completely overwriting the "mal ware", Then I also downloaded, a linux live CD, (knoppix), installed that as well, later , Xubuntu,...(this was 10 years ago), Any way, at the same time, it was costing the company , where I worked, 10 to 15000 pesos a month, or 120,000 pesos a year, to have a tech come and update the ant-viruses, etc,..everything he needed to keep the windows mal ware working, ... When I showed my boss about linux, and had my laptop connected to the modem,.. demonstrating it,... well, he liked it, but problem, there are not very many techs, in this area, that know anything about linux, But any way, I installed the new system, and now, it is very rare indeed that I am needed to do anything with that, it is a reliable , minimal maintenance system, not to long ago I updated it to newer versions, ...still Xubuntu,.. now I have been using Debian, 10 months now, and am confident, that he will be comfortable with it, if and when he wants to install a new system , that will be what I recommend,.. any way, to long of a story, and still a lot of "details" not included.... if a "non tech" type person like me, can install and maintain the OS, that is really a "user friendly" OS, ... the windows, junk,..I never could even come close to figuring out, I guess all that "high tech" stuff is above my head, ...I mean after all , I do sort of live, or used to live "under a rock",.(now retired, and live at home) ..that is all I did all day, cutting them up into smaller rocks, and making things with them, but that is another topic.
The point being, if a guy, that never went past the 5th grade, like me, can work with linux, then imagine how much easier it is for the "rocket scientists"

[andre@home]

Good points!
Quite some decisions to take in order to make that process run smooth and cost effective.
It also quite dependent upon the type of organization.

In ours (~1700 people world wide) the costs are quite high. The costs are calculated per working place; hardware is only a minor part of it. Machines are often leased and the lease time is only extended nowadays as hardware stays longer ok (leasing because of spread of cost/depreciation balances). As we also have an intranet, sharepoint and quite some other on line database, and in the future an on line electronic notebook, this adds to the cot of a working place considerably.

Teaching people to work with Linux is one point, but as we are in a technical area with quit some modeling, either self-programmed in C++ like stuff but also quite a lot using excel with quite advanced macros, a huge amount of application need adaption or even completely rewritten (programs but also macros). Although I'm in favor for a switch to Linux... I see also such kinds of work, so costs indeed as a significant hurdle to make that switch.

So.. good points indeed you've indicated!

[GarryRicketson]

I do realize, especially in offices and networks , where all or most of the employees only know how to use windows, and the software that is for windows, it is not something that can easily be done "overnight" to make a change over to another OS, and even though many of the software for linux is very similar, to what MS has, there is a "learning curve", and probably a expense involved in training them, some time lost, while they get familiar with the new programs, etc,...
I struggle here, with a teacher, that insists on the kids using windows xp, but after all said and done, when my kid turns in his home work, the dumb ass teacher has no clue he used "libre office", on a Debian system.

[NFT5]

Wow, I find it hard to believe any one would pay that much, for Mal-ware that does not work well, based on the current exchange rate : that is in mx pesos, 105,000.00 mx
And for something that does not work well,..???

$7000AUD, so only 84,000MXN.

No, I didn't. We'd been hit with a few viruses and malware over the years so I was looking for something that was more resistant and I had been playing with a Linux dual boot for some time prior.

I guess that the "free lunch" that you mention was a part of my decision, of course, but, like you I also made some donations to Debian once the changeover was made. It's not that I object to paying for software, per se, but that I see the exorbitant costs of the MS products as unreasonable. We're not big enough to qualify for discounted pricing so OS plus an Office package was going to cost close to $1000 per machine and that I saw as ridiculous.

I think that one should acknowledge that XP, post SP3 was, in fact, reasonably stable and its interface was well known and accepted by users. Its failings were the security loopholes that flowed from its basic structure and needed almost daily updates from MS to stay on top of. It was a bit slow on some of the older machines, so the better performance that came from a switch to Debian, plus being able to keep those machines in service, was also a factor.

Teaching people to work with Linux is one point, but as we are in a technical area with quit some modeling, either self-programmed in C++ like stuff but also quite a lot using excel with quite advanced macros, a huge amount of application need adaption or even completely rewritten (programs but also macros). Although I'm in favor for a switch to Linux... I see also such kinds of work, so costs indeed as a significant hurdle to make that switch.

We do run a couple of proprietary applications that are available for Windows only. These run in XP VMs that I can lock up, safe from the outside world and with a minimal installation so they actually run quite well.

There are also a number of spreadsheet apps that were developed in Excel. Maybe not quite as advanced as yours but, so far, they all run just fine in Libre Office Calc. Still, I appreciate your point that the time/cost to adapt or rewrite existing programs/applications can be significant. Maybe not a deal breaker for many organisations, but certainly need to be factored in.

[tomazzi]

I think, that one of extremely important factors was still not mentioned in this topic:
Electronics created by humanity so far, is not applicable for usage in space.

The key problem is that our electronics is completely unreliable outside of earth's atmosphere, mainly due to a radiation of many kinds (x-rays, ionizing effects, free neutrons, etc). We don't have a reliable shielding against radiation, especially against heavy particles like neutrons - every material is simply "transparent" for them. So, in a cosmic space a special hardware must be used - You can check out topics about radiation-hardened (rad-hard) chips.

How is this related to linux or open-source software?

A very short answer here can be: because to test and discover problems with hardware, one has to be able to detect what particular portions of code have failed - so obviously, one has to know the sources.

It's easier (and cheaper) to operate, test and diagnose problems with open-source mission-critical software, simply because You know the code (and how it works). It's also easier and cheaper to maintain and control single code base - that is, in the long term.

Regards.