Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [ET] International Space Station switches from Windows to Linux, for improved reliability
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[ET] International Space Station switches from Windows to Linux, for improved reliability - Page 9

post #81 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

So by your post I'm going to assume you are *THE* best QA Engineer on the planet, who is capable of fully testing a product suite in all conditions before launch?

Can I get your business card?

Well, in the case of the ISS you don't have to test all sorts of environments and conditions...it should be pretty well known what will be used for what. So I'd think this should be possible to at least the 90th percentile.

The cases where SQA testing can't really test everything the software could see is when you have thousands users and a short testing window with only a couple testers.

However, if they were letting the crew members do personal activities on the ISS network...well, then things get blown to pieces.
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #82 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSCoder4ever View Post

Like others have said, why have they used it in the first place? rolleyes.gif

“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.” They had to "migrate" certain functions that were not available in Linux at the time apparently. So from what it seems Windows was the only OS they could work on without any hardware restrictions. So in one aspect it is better than nothing but it obviously shows that Windows is not perfect for everything and that Linux can pull through.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASUS P8P67 560 ti 8gb ddr3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
1tb green caviar 1tb Black caviar Windows 7 650w seasonic 
CaseMouse
Corsair 400r Corsair M60 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASUS P8P67 560 ti 8gb ddr3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
1tb green caviar 1tb Black caviar Windows 7 650w seasonic 
CaseMouse
Corsair 400r Corsair M60 
  hide details  
Reply
post #83 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

Well, in the case of the ISS you don't have to test all sorts of environments and conditions...it should be pretty well known what will be used for what. So I'd think this should be possible to at least the 90th percentile.

The cases where SQA testing can't really test everything the software could see is when you have thousands users and a short testing window with only a couple testers.

However, if they were letting the crew members do personal activities on the ISS network...well, then things get blown to pieces.

You can't write tests for every possible race condition in any environment, no matter how small the space. Think of the QA testing as a sphere within a cube. You will never be able to expand the sphere to the corners to encompass all conditions and all testing from a software testing suite.

I didn't say they weren't able to test things well, my point was testing is not even remotely as perfect as he seems to believe it can be.

Regardless of the number of testers running the test, the only way to ensure software is 100% bug free is to test every possible parameter in every possible scenario, which is obviously impossible.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
post #84 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

You can't write tests for every possible race condition in any environment, no matter how small the space. Think of the QA testing as a sphere within a cube. You will never be able to expand the sphere to the corners to encompass all conditions and all testing from a software testing suite.

I didn't say they weren't able to test things well, my point was testing is not even remotely as perfect as he seems to believe it can be.

Regardless of the number of testers running the test, the only way to ensure software is 100% bug free is to test every possible parameter in every possible scenario, which is obviously impossible.

Oh agree...part of my day is spent on QTP every day, but I am just saying that things like the ISS are VERY controlled environments with very limited users.
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #85 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

You can't write tests for every possible race condition in any environment, no matter how small the space. Think of the QA testing as a sphere within a cube. You will never be able to expand the sphere to the corners to encompass all conditions and all testing from a software testing suite.

I didn't say they weren't able to test things well, my point was testing is not even remotely as perfect as he seems to believe it can be.

Regardless of the number of testers running the test, the only way to ensure software is 100% bug free is to test every possible parameter in every possible scenario, which is obviously impossible.

By this logic, we shouldn't never use software in dangerous areas because nothing is 100% bug free, since not every possible parameter in every scenario has been tested. They should never have upgraded to windows xp in the first place on the space station because QA testing is like a sphere in a cube, and you cannot test all possibilities. No one should ever upgrade anything.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #86 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by serp777 View Post

By this logic, we shouldn't never use software in dangerous areas because nothing is 100% bug free, since not every possible parameter in every scenario has been tested. They should never have upgraded to windows xp in the first place on the space station because QA testing is like a sphere in a cube, and you cannot test all possibilities. No one should ever upgrade anything.

Hardly, every upgrade / update / push comes with inherent risk just like everything else in computing, or really business as a whole. Recognizing that no manner of QA testing will completely test code to assure 100% accuracy is fundamental to coding strategy.

Your entire post is a baseless attempt at playing devils advocate, except you're completely wrong. I won't get long winded and try to explain how you're wrong as you obviously have no knowledge of QA testing, systems deployment in a scientific environment, or really it seems coding in general.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

Well, in the case of the ISS you don't have to test all sorts of environments and conditions...it should be pretty well known what will be used for what. So I'd think this should be possible to at least the 90th percentile.

The cases where SQA testing can't really test everything the software could see is when you have thousands users and a short testing window with only a couple testers.

However, if they were letting the crew members do personal activities on the ISS network...well, then things get blown to pieces.

Actually I think they do. Not sure if they have to bring their own computers or not. For the most part what you say makes sense.
Core 2 Haf
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2Q Q9550 ASUS P5E3 Deluxe Wifi-AP GTX 480 Kingston HyperX DDR3 KHX1600C9D3K2/8G 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
PNY 1333 55gb, 320Gb, 500GB, 1TB Hyper 212 EVO Win 7 Ultimate 64bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Lubuntu 13.04 x64 OS X 10.8.5 TX750 Haf 912 
  hide details  
Reply
Core 2 Haf
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2Q Q9550 ASUS P5E3 Deluxe Wifi-AP GTX 480 Kingston HyperX DDR3 KHX1600C9D3K2/8G 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
PNY 1333 55gb, 320Gb, 500GB, 1TB Hyper 212 EVO Win 7 Ultimate 64bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Lubuntu 13.04 x64 OS X 10.8.5 TX750 Haf 912 
  hide details  
Reply
post #88 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdoublejj View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

Well, in the case of the ISS you don't have to test all sorts of environments and conditions...it should be pretty well known what will be used for what. So I'd think this should be possible to at least the 90th percentile.

The cases where SQA testing can't really test everything the software could see is when you have thousands users and a short testing window with only a couple testers.

However, if they were letting the crew members do personal activities on the ISS network...well, then things get blown to pieces.

Actually I think they do. Not sure if they have to bring their own computers or not. For the most part what you say makes sense.
Well, I'm pretty sure they can. Else how would Hadfield's updates have happened?
post #89 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

Hardly, every upgrade / update / push comes with inherent risk just like everything else in computing, or really business as a whole. Recognizing that no manner of QA testing will completely test code to assure 100% accuracy is fundamental to coding strategy.

Your entire post is a baseless attempt at playing devils advocate, except you're completely wrong. I won't get long winded and try to explain how you're wrong as you obviously have no knowledge of QA testing, systems deployment in a scientific environment, or really it seems coding in general.

i never claimed that QA testing would assure 100% accuracy. However, thorough testing and sufficient test cases can insure a >99% accuracy. All i'm saying is that by your logic, we shouldn't ever upgrade anything because it has an inherent risk. Obviously businesses and institutions need to upgrade their systems for improved functionality, and you have to draw the line at some point. You also still completely ignore that an upgraded system could have more reliability than the old system. When things fail, you have a backup system to take over, and then you fix the problem--redundancy is the key when you have new systems. Since your ego is clearly much higher than your actual knowledge, you decided not to explain, but rather make a few baseless ad hominen statements. I'm guessing you did that because your explanation is probably just as full of logical holes as the rest of your posts.
Edited by serp777 - 5/24/13 at 1:35pm
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #90 of 91
I think you guys are ignoring the most important factor: cost.

Could they regularly update the ISS OS? Probably. Would it cost a lot for minimal gain? Probably.

That's pretty much it.

*EDIT: And yes, a large part of that cost is probably QA testing and retraining staff. Something that probably needs to be done more thoroughly on a space station than it would in your office.
Edited by NihilOC - 5/24/13 at 1:49pm
Serigatum
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k @ 4.7Ghz Asus P87 Deluxe EVGA GTX 780 Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Raid0: 2x512GB Samsung 840 Pro 2GB WD Black NZXT Kraken x60 Windows 8 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 NZXT Phantom 820 
Mouse
Razer Ouroboros 
  hide details  
Reply
Serigatum
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k @ 4.7Ghz Asus P87 Deluxe EVGA GTX 780 Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Raid0: 2x512GB Samsung 840 Pro 2GB WD Black NZXT Kraken x60 Windows 8 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 NZXT Phantom 820 
Mouse
Razer Ouroboros 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [ET] International Space Station switches from Windows to Linux, for improved reliability