"There is also Frank Sorenson's pages. He has all the court documents, not just the ones that PJ can spin into a story."
So, since groklaw doesn't have some of the proceedural junk, but rather concentrates on the stuff that deserves analysis, that is somehow biased?
I have to wonder if you have even looked at that reference yourself, since it includes "Don't forget to visit GROKLAW for the latest legal information and analysis." and has references to the groklaw postings of all the documents with any meat to them.
Perhaps he is "just biased because Groklaw says what you [he] want to hear."
"When someone decides to file a lawsuit in a public court of law, the public then has EVERY right to know what transpired during that case, for several reasons:"
So, since SCOG brought this questionable suit, and got AIX source code, the public has a right to look at IBM's proprietary code? What has that to do with "Public faith and confidence in court proceedings...." ?
Don't get me wrong - I am not questioning you seem familiar with the effect the problems have on operations. And of course it just shows good sense that as a pilot, you network (!) with the folks you depend on as you describe. But do you network with the programmers or the administrators? It still sounds like you are getting at least two levels removed information from the level any real dirt is available. Perhaps an analogy would be talking to someone who works in the next office to the folks who supervise Air Traffic Controllers rather than the controllers themselves. Sure, if those folks ar interested in aviation and ask the right questions they can gain reliable information, but it is not like going to the, er, appropriate end of the horse.
FWIW, my father was a machinist/aircraft mechanic and finally technical writer who worked with oil company research labs on improving lubrication, publishing articles in their company publications including doing his own photomicroscopy to analyse corrosion effects.
My first job out of school with a EE degree was at the Johnson Space Center training astronauts and sitting console. About 70% of the folks I worked with were either military pilots still flying in the reserves or private pilots (and I was fool enough to go do light aerobotics with some of them), plus of course the flight crews. While there, I started dealing with with computers as they first started appearing in offices, and eventually went into full time system administration/ systems engineering, primarily for development groups and test labs.
Now, the reason I blabbed on like that was to try to establish
1) I am somewhat familiar with the aviation community from both the 'user' and 'support' aspects.
2) I am somewhat familiar with the computer community, starting as a user, and moving into the support realm.
3) I would claim that both the classes I wrote and taught - as well as the time spent on console, directly gives me a somewhat initmate knowledge of translating information from one community into another. You generally don't explain an onboard system to a pilot the same way you would a PHD in EE, or a medical experiment to a pilot as you would an MD.
One particular conclusion based on my experience in those worlds (and I know this is a bit of a generalization) is that when a pilot or any member of an air crew tells me something about their aircraft or it's surrounding operations, I can probably bet on the information being pretty good.
If a programmer or administrator tells me something about their program or system, before I put any stock in what they say (beyond my own experience in similar veins), I probe their background and quiz them as much as possible.
If I wanted to be glib, if programmers/administrators had to go thru the kind of training programs as pilots or even support personell, about 85% would not cut it. Or if these folks made it into the sky, they would be weeded out by the flaming holes in the ground they made.
If, as I expect, your information is based on what an ATC heard from a guy down the hall, or maybe even was touching a computer, or even from a distilled briefing from the contractor - I would first have to ask how much that ATC knew about systems and programming and see how critically s/he processed (!) that data.
If you even got the information directly from and admin/programmer, (as you might guess by now), the same set of questions would apply.
In either case, the point is to wonder aloud if you take that information as if it were coming from folks who are the caliber of the people you are used to relying on.
Consider your description of the memory issue: "It's a memory allocation error that retains some of the old tracking on the system, thus, the whole box needs to be rebooted every 45 days or the memory overloads and crashes the OS."
The typical memory allocation error doesn't have anything to do with old data still being in the system, but simply that m
Quite true. And has been pointed out by others, the ability to automate something like a reboot is so trivial that the whole issue still smacks of not having the whole story.
That said, I don't think the point that making bad systems decisions such as basing your system on such a weak product to begin with only increases your chances for disaster should be lost or discounted.
Nothing is bullet proof - but some implementations certainly come closer than others.
Just where do you read in what article that said anything other than the "combination of human error and a design glitch in the Windows servers"?
No, I don't want to offload the responsibility of any humans involved, but the point everyone has be making (and I thought it was obvious enough) that it is ridulous to have a system so flawed that human intervention was required as a workaround when LOSS OF LIVES AND/OR PROPERTY is involved.
The fact that your vendor should be submitted to some very clever form of torture doesn't say anything about your system.
IBM uses Notes internally. I got a peek at the server list for about 100,000 seats. Even before the internal ban on Windows servers, the server of choice was RS6K. That didn't stop some of the salesmen from the subdivision from outright lying to customers that the AIX version was going away so they could sell bunches of Windows licenses.
These are the people driving next to you on the freeway and voting.
Actually, that explains alot if you think about it.....
Just curious - but how does being a pilot give you more insight into the system? I would particularly like to see the "memory allocation error that retains some of the old tracking on the system". That would be quite amazing in itself.
Actually, us zealots were responding to multiple resports pointing directly to MS software. If you are going to start making up possibilities - maybe it never happened at all?
Looking at the www.faa.gov home page, it says "Department of Transportation".
However, having been a systems engineer and administrator in a couple of stints at one of the DOI Bureaus... you don't want to know.
Well,
Stone tablets could still be used, but if obviously better tools exist - doesn't it make engineering sense to use them?
It hardly seems wise to "forget the Windows / *nix" issue when it goes to logic of choosing one of the most basic building blocks on which any system is built.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is also Frank Sorenson's pages. He has all the court documents, not just the ones that PJ can spin into a story."
So, since groklaw doesn't have some of the proceedural junk, but rather concentrates on the stuff that deserves analysis, that is somehow biased?
I have to wonder if you have even looked at that reference yourself, since it includes "Don't forget to visit GROKLAW for the latest legal information and analysis." and has references to the groklaw postings of all the documents with any meat to them.
Perhaps he is "just biased because Groklaw says what you [he] want to hear."
Sigh.
"When someone decides to file a lawsuit in a public court of law, the public then has EVERY right to know what transpired during that case, for several reasons:"
So, since SCOG brought this questionable suit, and got AIX source code, the public has a right to look at IBM's proprietary code? What has that to do with "Public faith and confidence in court proceedings...." ?
Nothing. Think it thru folks.
And yet /. still has it up there on the page as if it was new news - not even an update.
Tsk tsk.
Don't get me wrong - I am not questioning you seem familiar with the effect the problems have on operations. And of course it just shows good sense that as a pilot, you network (!) with the folks you depend on as you describe. But do you network with the programmers or the administrators? It still sounds like you are getting at least two levels removed information from the level any real dirt is available. Perhaps an analogy would be talking to someone who works in the next office to the folks who supervise Air Traffic Controllers rather than the controllers themselves. Sure, if those folks ar interested in aviation and ask the right questions they can gain reliable information, but it is not like going to the, er, appropriate end of the horse.
FWIW, my father was a machinist/aircraft mechanic and finally technical writer who worked with oil company research labs on improving lubrication, publishing articles in their company publications including doing his own photomicroscopy to analyse corrosion effects.
My first job out of school with a EE degree was at the Johnson Space Center training astronauts and sitting console. About 70% of the folks I worked with were either military pilots still flying in the reserves or private pilots (and I was fool enough to go do light aerobotics with some of them), plus of course the flight crews. While there, I started dealing with with computers as they first started appearing in offices, and eventually went into full time system administration/ systems engineering, primarily for development groups and test labs.
Now, the reason I blabbed on like that was to try to establish
1) I am somewhat familiar with the aviation community from both the 'user' and 'support' aspects.
2) I am somewhat familiar with the computer community, starting as a user, and moving into the support realm.
3) I would claim that both the classes I wrote and taught - as well as the time spent on console, directly gives me a somewhat initmate knowledge of translating information from one community into another. You generally don't explain an onboard system to a pilot the same way you would a PHD in EE, or a medical experiment to a pilot as you would an MD.
One particular conclusion based on my experience in those worlds (and I know this is a bit of a generalization) is that when a pilot or any member of an air crew tells me something about their aircraft or it's surrounding operations, I can probably bet on the information being pretty good.
If a programmer or administrator tells me something about their program or system, before I put any stock in what they say (beyond my own experience in similar veins), I probe their background and quiz them as much as possible.
If I wanted to be glib, if programmers/administrators had to go thru the kind of training programs as pilots or even support personell, about 85% would not cut it. Or if these folks made it into the sky, they would be weeded out by the flaming holes in the ground they made.
If, as I expect, your information is based on what an ATC heard from a guy down the hall, or maybe even was touching a computer, or even from a distilled briefing from the contractor - I would first have to ask how much that ATC knew about systems and programming and see how critically s/he processed (!) that data.
If you even got the information directly from and admin/programmer, (as you might guess by now), the same set of questions would apply.
In either case, the point is to wonder aloud if you take that information as if it were coming from folks who are the caliber of the people you are used to relying on.
Consider your description of the memory issue:
"It's a memory allocation error that retains some of the old tracking on the system, thus, the whole box needs to be rebooted every 45 days or the memory overloads and crashes the OS."
The typical memory allocation error doesn't have anything to do with old data still being in the system, but simply that m
Quite true. And has been pointed out by others, the ability to automate something like a reboot is so trivial that the whole issue still smacks of not having the whole story.
That said, I don't think the point that making bad systems decisions such as basing your system on such a weak product to begin with only increases your chances for disaster should be lost or discounted.
Nothing is bullet proof - but some implementations certainly come closer than others.
Just where do you read in what article that said anything other than the "combination of human error and a design glitch in the Windows servers"?
No, I don't want to offload the responsibility of any humans involved, but the point everyone has be making (and I thought it was obvious enough) that it is ridulous to have a system so flawed that human intervention was required as a workaround when LOSS OF LIVES AND/OR PROPERTY is involved.
The fact that your vendor should be submitted to some very clever form of torture doesn't say anything about your system.
IBM uses Notes internally. I got a peek at the server list for about 100,000 seats. Even before the internal ban on Windows servers, the server of choice was RS6K. That didn't stop some of the salesmen from the subdivision from outright lying to customers that the AIX version was going away so they could sell bunches of Windows licenses.
These are the people driving next to you on the freeway and voting. Actually, that explains alot if you think about it.....Just curious - but how does being a pilot give you more insight into the system? I would particularly like to see the "memory allocation error that retains some of the old tracking on the system". That would be quite amazing in itself.
Actually, us zealots were responding to multiple resports pointing directly to MS software. If you are going to start making up possibilities - maybe it never happened at all?
Looking at the www.faa.gov home page, it says "Department of Transportation". However, having been a systems engineer and administrator in a couple of stints at one of the DOI Bureaus ... you don't want to know.
Well, Stone tablets could still be used, but if obviously better tools exist - doesn't it make engineering sense to use them? It hardly seems wise to "forget the Windows / *nix" issue when it goes to logic of choosing one of the most basic building blocks on which any system is built.
Follow your own link. No patch there for Windows 2000 Advanced Server.