"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:g0n11j$rpf$4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:1211032348.5441.0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ivan Marsh" <ivanmarsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:pan.2008.05.16.18.37.28.500559@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:56:01 -0700, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "dennis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <den...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ... no mention of vista gives you several choices including:
linux,
>>>>>>>>> Mac, XP, 98, 95, CE, pSOS, DOS, and loads of others. Choose the
>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>>> one for the application and everything will be fine.
>>>>>>>> IIRC, the USN had been using NT on some of their ****ps a couple
of
>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's some links:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.gcn.com/print/17_17/33727-1.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
<http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/18007/windows-nt-sinks-navy-
>>>>>>>> ****p.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are all pretty dated; not sure if there's more current info
>>>>>>>> online
>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>> Sorry... but the Yorktown meltdown had to do with a divide by zero
>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>> in the engine power interface when the operator entered zero into
a
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>> input field which was the fault of the person who programmed the
>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>> software and had nothing to do with the operating system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This should in no way be misconstrued as an endorsement of
windows.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> would not knowingly trust my life to a Microsoft OS.*
>>>>>> It still highlights the general poor quality of MS-Windows
programming
>>>>>> methodologies spilling into serious software development cycles and
>>>>>> today's design techniques. While software has become more complex,
it
>>>>>> is also true the teams developing it are much larger, better funded
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> generally less disciplined. We somehow think a business NET ad-hoc
>>>>>> programmer makes a embedded systems programmer, and that is a
fallacy
>>>>>> for greed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a load of uninformed bull****.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds pretty accurate to me, having worked on just such teams in the
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> Maybe Hadron never worked on a well run, smooth, reliable, well
>>> performing
>>> large scale software development project that was also on budget and
on
>>> time. Many have not had this experience.
>>
>>
>> And here we see the thread twist.
>>
>> Please go back and reread what is being discussed.
>
> No twist. You are likely one of those cowboy developers. My guess
anyway.
> Don't like processes that are repeatable and well defined.
At no stage did I say that. I use such processes. Please quote me saying
otherwise.
> Lets hope you never write code for something that results in life or
death.
> Or losing a billion dollar ****p for a couple of bucks of structured
software
> development.
hate to tell you old bean but I have worked on just such. And under
tight, tight process control.
Why are you slinging allegations around?
The issue at debate here is this silly claim about "Loose MS standards"
and Hilliards ridiculous boasting about how he selects the best OS
*AFTER* he has manged these mega projects to completion.
|
