Why is there a Mac and linux forum, but no Windows forum?

[jgombos]

Again, you have no grounds for what you're saying.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. More info at http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

And? You're misunderstanding the logical fallacy. This does not get you off the hook for supporting what you claim, particularly when you've made a claim that is verifiable (after all, we aren't debating the existence of God here). Furthermore, you're whole position is hinged on discrediting the currency of my knowledge, yet I hold a masters in network security that is under 2 years old.

[lordsmurf]

You are the one demanding proof. Your inability to argue your inaccurate information has backed you into a corner. And as such, the typical defensive behavior of "prove me wrong" has kicked into effect.

I'm not in the corner, and I have no need for proof. I already know the misinformation you spout is a steaming pile of cow pies. Several others have come to the same conclusion. In fact, some of them have given the "proof" that is being demanded.

A master's in network security does not mean much. The information taught in school was outdated before graduation even hit. And then it further proves your knowledge of video and several other areas are not within your realm of expertise.

Wise people know when to shut up and walk away. It's about time for some wisdom.

At any rate, this topic is now straying. The original question was answer sufficiently. Windows applications corner 90-95% of the computing market, so any question asked is assumed to be Windows unless otherwise specified, hence the reason for the specific Mac and Linux forums.

Have a good day.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I would be like NASA choosing to use a Nintendo to handle telemetry data from a space probe.

Funny that - only yesterday NASA ordered software from us. And it only works on Windows.

edDV and lordsmurf are right. And I agree with them.

I stress Windows 2000, XP and Vista to the extreme through software development and I cannot recall the last time I got a BSOD.

Your perceptions seem rooted firmly in the non-NT Windows past.

Windows NT OSes have been used in *mission critical* arenas for years, including the Department of Defense in real warfare.

[jgombos]

You are the one demanding proof.

Of course, you're arguing an ungrounded positive, and the burdon is not on me to prove a negative. I said Windows is not used on safety-critical systems, you said it's commonplace, yet you cannot give a single such example. As such, your whole position is without merit. edDV is the only one here who has been able to counter me with anything concrete.

Your inability to argue your inaccurate information has backed you into a corner. And as such, the typical defensive behavior of "prove me wrong" has kicked into effect.

I'm not in the corner, and I have no need for proof. I already know the misinformation you spout is a steaming pile of cow pies.

I think folks know where the steaming pile is when they read your claim that you have no burdon of proof. Any entry level argumentation class will show you that you must produce some shred of support for your position if you want to be effective.

Several others have come to the same conclusion. In fact, some of them have given the "proof" that is being demanded.

You can't back up your claim that windows is used in safety-critical applications, so the only conclusion to draw there is that you have not effectively made your point.

A master's in network security does not mean much. The information taught in school was outdated before graduation even hit. And then it further proves your knowledge of video and several other areas are not within your realm of expertise.

You're confusing network security with computer science. Network security concepts do not age like that. The halflife of the information security knowledge is at least a decade. Even anchient Rome dealt with the same information security issues we deal with today. The exploits change, but you don't get a masters in network security to learn about the particular exploits of the time. Nor do you need a masters to browse through the virus list at mcaffee.

[rkr1958]

For some reason I'm reminded of what my father used to say to me when I was a boy

It's like arguing with a brick wall

He passed three years ago at the age of 82. I hope he wasn't talking about me.

[edDV]

You are stating Windows is not in use. Giving SGI examples does nothing to advance your point.

I was countering the claim that SGI has been out of the picture for 15 years.

I intended to imply that SGI IRIS/IRIX has been in market share decline for 15 years mostly displaced by Windows at the user interface and Linux for the render farm. The SGI high end hardware is still used and needed for 100% animated films like Monsters, Inc. but the trend has been away from SGI hardware since Toy Story was rendered on a Sun farm, Dreamworks went with HP and later large clusters of Intel and AMD PC's have become common all at the expense of SGI.

Linux on Intel
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/insight/en/di1q03_016?c=us&l=en&s=corp
http://news.com.com/Pixar+switches+from+Sun+to+Intel/2100-1001_3-983898.html

Most films and TV series aren't 100% animation but most include some filtering and effects done on non-realtime computer hardware. These tasks are broken into small subprojects and hardware is deployed sufficient to the task. It is here that Windows dominates at the user interface and project flow level. Adobe Photoshop + After Effects and now the entire Adobe line is Intel centric and mostly on Windows. Unix workstations are still used for specialist tasks ( e.g. Decreets - Flint, Flame, Inferno) http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?id=7854611&siteID=123112
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk_Media_and_Entertainment

But you will find most general purpose applications are written to run on Windows or Mac. Unix is in decline because PC hardware has become more powerful and stable.
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/findsoftware/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_animation

Final editorial integration is likely do be done on AVID or similar hardware.

If you want to be a video guy in a top animated movie studio, this job description shows the types of equipment you will face.
http://www.blueskystudios.com/content/company-jobsdetail.php?id=66

[jgombos]

Funny that - only yesterday NASA ordered software from us. And it only works on Windows.

When I worked at JPL, Windows was only used internally for Word, and to support a couple cases where a project tool that was needed was unsupported on an engineering machine. (Though the more talented engineers used LaTeX instead of Word). We used a shared Citrix machine, because Windows was not important enough for everyone to have one at their desk. The limitation of using Windows were imposed on us by outside vendors who sold us products we needed, and it was far from favorable. Did your company give NASA a choice about which platform they received your application for?

I stress Windows 2000, XP and Vista to the extreme through software development and I cannot recall the last time I got a BSOD.

Your perceptions seem rooted firmly in the non-NT Windows past.

I just got a BSOD two days ago on XP Home. All I had to do was hotplug a DVD burner. The NT kernel is at the heart of XP, and it's lousy (though better than Win95).

Windows NT OSes have been used in *mission critical* arenas for years, including the Department of Defense in real warfare.

My Warcraft 3 game is mission critical too, when the mission is to get some entertainment. Windows is being used on the battlefield as an SUI. It feeds user input to mission critical systems, but there's redundancy in those cases, and it's never the target platform for a safety-critical application.

[Supreme2k]

I am completely confused as to why this thread, after starting out as a simple query, turned into an OS war?


I resent the statement that Windows is a "stupid" user interface. Is a Porsche or Mercedes a lump of crap because it looks pretty? Just because you prefer a certain OS doesn't mean you have to insult those that prefer the most supported one.

I also don't understand how someone is "more talented" due to their word processor choice

I have pretty much made the switch to Linux. I am a major computer geek with almost 30 years real and 8 years academic experience in nearly every field. Even though I can do all the command-line crap, doesn't mean I want to. I made the switch when I felt that the GUI, install/uninstall (both OS and programs), and general "user-friendliness" were at least close to the level of Windows. I have decided not to buy my OS every couple of years, but if Windows was free (I mean really, not P2P), I would stay with it. The fact that I *may* still have to use Wine says a lot.

On the other hand, my video production box will still be Windows XP (no internet connection, no frills, dedicated machine).

[JohnnyMalaria]

I just got a BSOD two days ago on XP Home. All I had to do was hotplug a DVD burner. The NT kernel is at the heart of XP, and it's lousy (though better than Win95).

Two issues:

1. XP Home - is all your XP experience based on XP Home? How can you talk about mission criticality in one breath and then state you use XP Home? Give me some anecdotes about how bad Windows Advanced Server 2003 is and I may feign some interest.

2. Hot-plugging a DVD burner. Is it WHQL certified? Are the drivers? The application software? Most BSODs in the NT kernel these days are PnP related - usually because the driver vendor screwed up - not Microsoft. If you install unsigned, uncertified drivers, then caveat emptor. Is the machine a home-brew? Does it have all the latest updates?

When I'm not selling software to NASA (who, incidentally, didn't even raise the question of platform options and, no, I don't offer others), I work for an enormous company with more than 150,000 employees all over the world. The company's entire infrastructure is Windows, Windows, Windows. The company operates in a heavily regulated field - the systems all have to have audit trails. The company's intellectual property - and hence value - is it the wealth of data it generates in the labs. All the lab systems are Windows, all the database software is Windows, all the GxP-compliant reporting software is Windows. Granted, 14 years ago, a lot of it was HP All In One servers and other dreadful mainframe systems. Not any more. Windows, Windows, Windows - because, when the IT groups do their stuff right and the company doesn't immediately jump on the latest thing, it works. I can connect to network shares anywhere - effortlessly. I can run software written more than ten years ago. I can open version of documents even older. And with 150,000 employees - most with their own desktop or laptop - you achieve serious productivity gains. Can't really imagine too many of them using LaTeX. Even the regulatory agencies we are accountable to prefer documents to be provide in some form of Microsoft format.

Mission critical systems - modern ocean-going freighters and oil tankers - the engine control systems are often Windows based. Powerplants. Building management systems. And more.

And I would trust myself to Microsoft over Apple anyday. You can't rely on Apple to stick to a given technology platform for any length of time. Apple's OSes are bastardizations and badly integrated hotch-potches of open source stuff plus some (but not much) proprietary code. It's a programmer's nightmare. I've tried Apple's SDKs - they are dreadful.

When you curl up with your Mac tonight - assuming it's a Intel one - remember what OS it was that got all that lovely hardware to be the de facto standard and affordable. Microsoft steers the hardware industry.

[edDV]

I am completely confused as to why this thread, after starting out as a simple query, turned into an OS war?

My efforts above were to give Microsoft some credit for penetrating this industry as well, but I think the main point is to counter the geek urban myth that movie and TV production is all about SGI and Apple. That has never been the case.

Computers have been used for specialized tasks and non-linear editing technology has had great impact, but the core of movie and TV production has been and still is dominated by purpose built specialty equipment made by unfamiliar companies. Read this article about the new CNBC center in New Jersey and see if you can find a way to promote a particular OS? The various OS' used are a 5% level issue in the mission goal.
http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_cnbcs_new_network/index.html

Drop a JPL computer graphics geek into that environment and he couldn't begin to tread water.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Here's an interesting read:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/8/5/085fe319-77e3-466f-87ce-5907949a1446/WS03...onCritical.doc

"Running Mission-Critical Applications on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition"

[edDV]

Windows isn't a realtime OS but it can be managed for realtime.

Secret #1 is don't surf porn during the heart transplant.

[jimmalenko]

Why is there a Mac and linux forum, but no Windows forum?

Because the vast majority of visitors use windows.

All forums except the Mac and Linux forums, and the ffmpegx forums presume Windows OS and Apps.

[dcsos]

If you wanna do it quickly USE WINDOWS (an hope it don't crash)
If you wanna do it relialbly USE MACINTOSH(tho' it may take longer to do)

my two cents

[jgombos]

1. XP Home - is all your XP experience based on XP Home?

No, I use XP Home, and XP Professional.

How can you talk about mission criticality in one breath and then state you use XP Home?

Not everything I do is mission critical. I'm obviously not using Windows (of any kind) for any mission critical tasks. Windows is a toy, not a tool.

Hot-plugging a DVD burner. Is it WHQL certified? Are the drivers? The application software? Most BSODs in the NT kernel these days are PnP related - usually because the driver vendor screwed up - not Microsoft. If you install unsigned, uncertified drivers, then caveat emptor. Is the machine a home-brew? Does it have all the latest updates?

It doesn't matter. There were two points of failure, and you're only seeing one. The first point of failure was the driver. The second point of failure was the OS. It is the second point of failure that I was referring to. It's the job of the OS to prevent processes from destroying each other. XP was not supposed to allow a faulty DVD driver to bring down the whole system, killing every process that was running, and forcing an unsafe shutdown.

I'll answer your questions anyway. The drive is officially supported on XP. No third party drivers were installed for the drive, so it was using drivers packaged with XP. Application s/w is out of the picture, because it wasn't even running, except perhaps Windows Explorer. It's a Dell, running the copy of XP that it was packaged with, plus all the latest updates (except an update that appears to have as a sole purpose sending my personal information Big Brother Gates).

There is nothing I did here that was out of the norm, or unsupported. OTOH, everything I do in linux is unsupported, using unofficial drivers for everything I can think of, and there is no guarantee. Yet I never experienced anything comparable to a BSOD on my linux box. I've had faulty drivers, but linux is architected well enough not to let those drivers affect more elements of the system than necessary.

I work for an enormous company with more than 150,000 employees all over the world. The company's entire infrastructure is Windows, Windows, Windows.

Those numbers mean very little to me, because I've seen much larger groups of people make rock stupid, asinine decisions. The first thing that comes to mind is the 2004 US presidential elections. So many people just go with the flow, and don't think critically enough to amount a what I would call an informed decision maker.

hen I'm not selling software to NASA (who, incidentally, didn't even raise the question of platform options and, no, I don't offer others), The company operates in a heavily regulated field - the systems all have to have audit trails. The company's intellectual property - and hence value - is it the wealth of data it generates in the labs. All the lab systems are Windows, all the database software is Windows, all the GxP-compliant reporting software is Windows.

I would be willing to bet that all those systems are backed up religiously. There must be a sufficient amount of fault tolerance to allow for Windows failures.

I can run software written more than ten years ago. I can open version of documents even older.

That's quite an achievement. Windows is the worse OS to expect any kind of backward compatability for apps. Microsoft has enough difficulty maintaining compatability between different versions of Word. I suspect it's partially a case of deliberate imposed upgrading, and partially a case of incompetance.

And with 150,000 employees - most with their own desktop or laptop - you achieve serious productivity gains. Can't really imagine too many of them using LaTeX. Even the regulatory agencies we are accountable to prefer documents to be provide in some form of Microsoft format.

I've been under Word-only mandates before. Word is a dumbed down one-click tool so managers and admins can use the document the way the know how. It's a training issue. Word is not an engineers tool. I've gone against the grain, and handed in latex produced PDFs that took me a fraction of the time to produce with substantially better presentation quality, and never got any complaints.

[jgombos]

Here's an interesting read:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/8/5/085fe319-77e3-466f-87ce-5907949a1446/WS03...onCritical.doc

"Running Mission-Critical Applications on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition"

Is there a copy of that document anywhere in a standard format that anyone can read? I don't feel like booting Windows.

[JohnnyMalaria]

It's the job of the OS to prevent processes from destroying each other. XP was not supposed to allow a faulty DVD driver to bring down the whole system, killing every process that was running, and forcing an unsafe shutdown.

Then you clearly don't understand what the BSOD is.

It's a Dell, running the copy of XP that it was packaged with, plus all the latest updates (except an update that appears to have as a sole purpose sending my personal information Big Brother Gates).

So it isn't up-to-date.

And why is it the OS's fault - maybe Dell have screwed up with the hardware. The majority of BSODs derive from faulty programming of kernel-mode drivers. By it's very design, kernel-mode code is given no quarter by the OS - make one mistake and the OS with stop the computer right there and then - TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE COMPUTER. That's what the BSOD is and, at that point, you can hook up to another computer and debug the system to find out what was at fault.

but linux is architected well enough not to let those drivers affect more elements of the system than necessary.

You miss the point. A driver in the Windows kernel must follow all the rules - and they are very daunting if you have never written kernel mode software for Windows before. If the OS detects a mistake - e.g., a wrong return value from a interrupt call - it stops everything. And rightly so - because drivers in the kernel are implicity trusted to do anything - access hardware directly etc etc. If a driver appears to misbehave, you cannot assume that it will not harm other parts of the system.

I've been under Word-only mandates before. Word is a dumbed down one-click tool so managers and admins can use the document the way the know how. It's a training issue. Word is not an engineers tool. I've gone against the grain, and handed in latex produced PDFs that took me a fraction of the time to produce with substantially better presentation quality, and never got any complaints.

Who said anything about Word-only mandates. We use a wide array of software and a lot of our documents end up being converted to PDFs - mainly so that they can't be edited readily.

Oh well, on with some customization for another client - a leader in the video broadcasting industry - who needs some Windows-based solutions.

[yoda313]

Windows is a toy, not a tool.

Metaphorically speaking since windows is an operating system you don't really do anything WITH windows. Its the platform you use to do OTHER stuff with. Its the programs that are important. So I'd always think that the programs are the main factor determining operating system choices. Its been plainly obvious that for YEARS Windows has the majority of software specifically designed for it. You don't have as much sheer software available for MAC as for Windows.

Now there is of course more mac stuff these days then ever before but you'll still see way more for windows than mac. So thats why more people tend to go windows then mac. You can do more on windows. Gaming in particular.

Now I have to say that personally ever since I first got off of win 98 and got windows 2000 I have loved the NT kernel. I used to have to reinstall 98 every six months or so from it locking up too much. With 2000 I never had a serious issue and now that I have XP on my emachine I've never even had to reinstall xp once in nearly two years of heavy use.

I think Microsoft deserves a lot more credit than it gets. They have done a lot of good for making computing more standard and user friendly. I've been using MS since dos 3.0 and wouldn't trade it for anything. Though I have tinkered briefly with Linux as a test but wasn't too overwhelmed by it.

Just my two cents and another thumbs up to MICROSOFT

[JohnnyMalaria]

Here's an interesting read:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/8/5/085fe319-77e3-466f-87ce-5907949a1446/WS03...onCritical.doc

"Running Mission-Critical Applications on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition"

Is there a copy of that document anywhere in a standard format that anyone can read? I don't feel like booting Windows.

Try icWord.

[guns1inger]

I have worked in major systems development for over 15 years in both government and private consulting sectors (including long stints in two of the top 4 consulting firms). I have managed developement and support for applications for major government applications, as well as billing, payroll and support apps for our largest Telco. Platforms have ranged across the gamut, from Windows and Linux, through to HP/UX on HP systems hardware. I can state from bitter experience that unix is just as prone to issues and problems as windows. Anyone who syas windows is a toy only is a fool living in an idealogical paradise in their own mind. I had a processing farm of 30 HP minis running HP/UX10 that all had to be booted once a week in order to keep them stable. We do the same with windows servers. Neither platform is impervious to the build up of zombie processes and OS crap. I have seen unix machines crash because of panic - the OS finds itself in a state where it doesn't know what to do, and just locks - the unix equivelent of the BSOD. It doesn't happen frequently, then then neither does the BSOD.

I have also used Linux because it's traditionally lower overhead allows it to run on older hardware, and there keep costs down. That's the logic, anyway. Trouble is, the TCO on linux just isn't as low as is claimed. It does still crash, it is not straight forward to install software on, and the lower foot print is rapidly disappearing as Linux distros try to make it look and feel like Windows to make it usuable to the average user.

Macs are just niche machines for people to whom style is more important than substance.

Every person I have met who is as dogmatically opposed to windows as you are has taken the position as some point long in the past, and has clung to it for so long they will never be swayed by logic or truth. It is a kind of religious zealotry. But experience has shown me that some OS's are better suited to some applications than others, all are prone to crashing given the right circumstances, and all are capable of very stable performance given the right maintenance.

But frankly, I would never take advice from anyone who makes a decision or recommendation based purely on idealology, as those decisions are never based on fact.

[redwudz]

After the first 5 or so posts, this thread seems to have nothing to do with the original question or feedback about our site, so I'm moving it to the Computer Forum.

Moderator redwudz

[jgombos]

By it's very design, kernel-mode code is given no quarter by the OS - make one mistake and the OS with stop the computer right there and then - TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE COMPUTER. That's what the BSOD is and, at that point, you can hook up to another computer and debug the system to find out what was at fault.

If your claim is that Windows did what it was supposed to by sending a BSOD, then it's the requirements that are faulty, which makes the problem even worse. It means the defects were introduced during the very first stage of development. When a user is trying to do something productive, and some trivial failure occurs, a good system can continue running in a degraded state, and gracefully shutdown the broken element so it doesn't cause harm to the rest of the system. The user does not want to shutdown productivity to debug a black box that they're not even responsible for, and start working on someone elses problem. If I were to write ada code that would throw a BSOD in some avionics code, the last thing the pilot wants to do is look at hex code while trying to fly the plane. Good software enables to user to operate in a degraded state. When Windows produces a BSOD, I care about the immediate data Windows failed to protect, and the data corruption it may have caused, much more than troubleshooting the black box. Inherently good operating systems are also open source, so your hands aren't tied.

It's more difficult to write fault tolerant software. To dump a BSOD is the sloppy approach, taken by developers who don't want to be bothered with tedious and thorough exception handling logic. Some developers do want to write good code, but economics don't permit it - particularly in a corporation like Micro$oft. There's nothing wrong with capturing the error, and logging the coredump, but doing so does not require an operating system to abandon its primary responsibility of availability, protecting processes, and controlling resources.

You miss the point. A driver in the Windows kernel must follow all the rules

I got the point; I just disagree. Of course drivers must follow all the rules. But the OS must respond intelligently when that doesn't happen. It doesn't help the end user for the OS to go non-operational when a driver breaks the rules.

If the OS detects a mistake - e.g., a wrong return value from a interrupt call - it stops everything. And rightly so - because drivers in the kernel are implicity trusted to do anything - access hardware directly etc etc. If a driver appears to misbehave, you cannot assume that it will not harm other parts of the system.

Too much trust is being extended to the driver. This is why the BSOD problem, and why Windows viruses can be so severe - they often infect the system as a driver, and the Windows gives them a blank check.

[JohnnyMalaria]

OK - so let's see your argument for Mac in the cockpit....

[jgombos]

OK - so let's see your argument for Mac in the cockpit....

I wouldn't want my life reliant on OS/X in a cockpit either; it's not DO178-B certified, it's not a realtime system, and it's not made for safety critical systems. But I will say this: because macs are much better at isolating faults and falling back to a degraded state, while faults in the Windows NT kernel environment are so frequent and often catastrophic for the whole system, I would much rather have my life depend on a Mac-based system than a Windows-based system. Plus the fact that OS/X is mostly open source makes me confident that I could inspect the code and verify that it does what I want it to. The ability to inspect the code is very important when the correctness of the code is important.

[lordsmurf]

I see the tactic being used now is to quote everything piecemeal, try to use lots of tech-sounding words, and then make posts real long.

Pretty much all of the anti-Windows stuff is idealogical opinion. It's quite obvious when safer structure is being attacked for lacking in leniency. Or when the OS is blamed for third-party or hardware-related issues. Any OS will barf if unstable hardware or code is run on it.

This is not much different than calling a Ford a lousy car because you don't like your neighbor (who drives on like an idiot), or because of that isolated SUV issue with Firestone tires. Neither the tires nor the neighbor has anything to do with the actual car.

[jgombos]

I see the tactic being used now is to quote everything piecemeal, try to use lots of tech-sounding words, and then make posts real long.

Yes, of course I use inline quoting to make it clear which points I'm addressing. The tactic of making some vague sweeping ad hominem embedded idealogical generalization has been failing you, because my arguments are left unaddressed. You would present your case better if you used inline quoting.

This is not much different than calling a Ford a lousy car because you don't like your neighbor (who drives on like an idiot), or because of that isolated SUV issue with Firestone tires. Neither the tires nor the neighbor has anything to do with the actual car.

If Ford failed to make a car that prevents the driver from incompetent driving, but makers other than Ford manage to develop some technology to do this, then you can use that analogy.

Security products are tasked with controlling threats, and reliable operating systems share that responsibility.

If you have a dog that gets into the trash, and spreads it all over the floor, is it a simple matter of saying all fault lies on the dog for doing it? You didn't fault yourself by failing to secure the trash? When there are two points of failure, you seem to only find one point of failure.

[lordsmurf]

Sure, it would be shared problem. But I have no idea where that analogy came from. Sort of left field.

Tell me how how an SUV or SUV tires has anything to do with a car? Or how the neighbor has anything to with the car. It doesn't...

...and neither do most of your anti-Windows ramblings actually have anything to do with Windows. Or for that matter, any other OS. You're just pointing fingers wherever you feel, and then whining about something, true or not, related or not.

"I hate Windows. Wah! ... I like Linux! Goo goo, gah gah."

Let's just call a spade a spade and move on.

There is nothing wrong with having a preference. But there is something wrong with libelous, opinionated, factually-challenged dribble.

[JohnnyMalaria]

show me one case of Windows being used on a safety-critical application?

Here you go:

http://www.getronics.com/NR/rdonlyres/eerleygaz6ogrndbfc5x26qfh5rpwytcvhlp4kmzay3vlvmr...nne_police.pdf

And it's a PDF, so no excuses for not reading it. But if you are too lazy, here's my LGS (lazy git summary):

Lausanne Police Gain 99.999 Percent Uptime With New Command and Control Solution

(Oh, wait a minute - it's in Europe where, apparently, only d*mbf*cks would use Windows. Hmm.)

The desktops run on Microsoft Windows®2000 Server and Microsoft Office 2000 Professional, with the developers using the Microsoft Visual C#®development tool. Since going live in 2004, CADIC has achieved an availability of 99.999 percent. It automatically discovers failing or faulted hardware and reconfigures hardware resources to maintain system operations without operator intervention. CADIC is helping the police to respond in real time to any emergency, thereby achieving much faster response times to the public, and to save lives.

[rkr1958]

For some reason I'm reminded of what my father used to say to me when I was a boy

It's like arguing with a brick wall

He passed three years ago at the age of 82. I hope he wasn't talking about me.

Hey, I got the quote wrong. My dad said, "Is was like talking to a brick wall".