Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 07, 2003 09:16 AM
> And neither Windows nor Linux should be used for things like running a nuclear reactor.
Agreed.
> For that you need a fault-tolerant, mathematically-verified micro-kernel.
Disagree.
If you need an OS to run something as mission-critical as a nuclear reactor, you need to buy it from a company that is willing to guarrantee the OS will not fail. And has enough money to be worth the trouble of suing.
MS has the money to meet the second requirement, but the idea of being accountable for their software is entirely alien to their mindset. QNX (which you mention) meets the first requirement, but probably not the second.
And I believe that whoever put that Windows server on such a critical network should have been walked out the door, & their supervisor severly punished, if not fired. The same if it had been a Linux or BSD server. None of these has anything close to the reliability requirements that a power station needs.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Requirements for a Reliable OS
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 07, 2003 09:16 AMAgreed.
> For that you need a fault-tolerant, mathematically-verified micro-kernel.
Disagree.
If you need an OS to run something as mission-critical as a nuclear reactor, you need to buy it from a company that is willing to guarrantee the OS will not fail. And has enough money to be worth the trouble of suing.
MS has the money to meet the second requirement, but the idea of being accountable for their software is entirely alien to their mindset. QNX (which you mention) meets the first requirement, but probably not the second.
And I believe that whoever put that Windows server on such a critical network should have been walked out the door, & their supervisor severly punished, if not fired. The same if it had been a Linux or BSD server. None of these has anything close to the reliability requirements that a power station needs.
Geoff
#