Re: No Y2k Bug

[/dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker)]

It was Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:03:50 -0500, and Joshua P. Hill
<XXjoshhill@mindspring.com> wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:
| >This bias against NT seems to be vicious.  Mission Critical depends on
| >the mission, and failsafes can be built into every system.  I use
| >several NTs in my 'mission' and they run fine as long as someone
| >doesn't pull the power plug out of the wall.
| >
| >All you have to do is build good failsafes around the computer and
| >even a TRS-80 could do mission critical work.
| 
| Yeah, but would you use one?

Yes.  One uses what is available, usually until something better is
avaiable.  My first computer was a 4k RAM whoknows clock speed box
that WORKED.  The next was a glorious 286-10Mhz with a 30meg HD - wow
that WAS fast.  Then the next one came.

Each machine was state of the art when I used it.  And now I am on a
different state of the art machine.  Mission critical - REAL TIME.

| This has nothing to do wtih pro/anti NT
| bias: since there are perfectly good OS's that are designed for
| mission critical applications, it strikes me as--well, I'll be
| blunt--professionally incompetent to use one that wasn't.

As I said before, it depends on the mission.  A TRS-80 is fine IF you
don't mind its failings AND you build what the box controls with
appropriate failsafes so that if/when the box does die, it fails SAFE.

| And NT was *not* designed for real time control. Period.

That is your opinion.  You are welcome to it.

I'm sure you can name a few OS's that you believe are better for
mission critical or real time applications.  Name ONE that has never
failed.  Note the word NEVER.

And make sure that it runs a railroad or urban transit system (or part
of one) - just to keep us on topic.

JL