Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Paper strips (Score 1) 127

If it aint broke, don't fix it... Especially with safety critical stuff, upgrading is very, very hard. In general, one should do "continuous" updates, where single components are updated once in a while, but that is very expensive if the full system has to be certified again. Furthermore, old systems are often far harder to update than newer systems with better module separation.

Comment Plant trees, not solar panels (Score 1) 58

Wind turbines and nuclear powerplants only take a very small area from agriculture, forests or wild nature, but solar does. And don't eat 'organic' grown food: by nor using fertiliser and pesticides, it takes a lot more area to grow the same amount of food, area which could have been forest.

Comment Re: What advantage? (Score 1) 33

But how relevant are Windows in the public/private cloud? For a lot of legacy applications of course. For CI tests if you target Windows for your product, of course. New server/cloud applications are mostly Linux. So it is getting as relevant as MacOS in the cloud over time, but time is maybe 20 years from now..

Comment Isn't Windows just about bugging (Score 1) 46

the user about a lot of crap? I just started at a job, where I got a Windoze machine. All the crap it and the IT department wants of me. Extra security restrictions even though I am admin, an outsourced IT department with full control over "my" machine. At my previous job we all used Mac and Linux, and we didn't need any IT department even though the company was 5 times larger. I understand why businesses and IT like Windoze: The feeling of control over their users/employees, and constant work for the IT department. And when something goes wrong: "You don't get fired for buying IBM ( -> MS)"

Comment I don't get why they keep failing (Score 1) 137

Most other rockets of that size succeed with minor issues in first launh. Launching the rocket shouldn't be that much different from other rockets. Re-using it is a totally other ball-game, but why not do it, how they did successfully with Falcon 9: Get it usable and then figure out re-usable. I.e. get Starship to orbit without reuse (but reuse ready), launch Starlink satellites, then reuse boosters, then start to recover and reuse the ship. Even though the development itself is iterative, it is not "agile", where you start by a minimal viable product, and then at features. This is going for all the features, before they have a product. They also seem to be caught by quality problems. And maybe they try to make it too cheap by relaxing quality too much, for instance building it outside and no clean room.

Slashdot Top Deals

I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright

Working...