I was thinking about the recent story about the DB looking for windows 3.1 administrator.

A classic issue I’ve soon working in heavy industry is that hardware last longer than windows version. So 10 years ago, you bought a component for the product you design or a full machine for your factory which only comes with a windows XP driver.

10 year latter, Windows XP is obsolete, upgrading to a more recent windows might be an option but would cost a shit load of money.

I have therefore the impression that Linux would offer more control to the professional user in term of product lifecycle and patch deployment. However, there is always that stupid HW which doesn’t have a Linux driver.

  • stevecrox
    link
    fedilink
    195 months ago

    It does but for the 90’s/00’s a computer typically meant Windows.

    The ops staff would all be ‘Microsoft Certified Engineers’, the project managers had heard of Microsoft FuD about open source and every graduate would have been taught programming via Visual Studio.

    Then you have regulatory hurdles, for example in 2010 I was working on an ‘embedded’ platform on a first generation Intel Atom platform. Due to power constraints I suggested we use Linux. It worked brilliantly.

    Government regulations required anti virus from an approved list and an OS that had been accredited by a specific body.

    The only accredited OS’s were Windows and the approved Anti Viruses only supported Windows. Which is how I got to spend 3 months learning how to cut XP embedded down to nothing.