International Space Station Switches From Windows To Linux

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like all the computers on the ISS will be switching to Linux. The scary part about that announcement? NASA is still running Windows XP on all those systems. :eek:

The United Space Alliance, which manages the computers aboard the International Space Station in association with NASA, has announced that the Windows XP computers aboard the ISS have been switched to Linux. “We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.”
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, they needed an OS they could update to and Linux, in this case, fits their needs. However, I can guarantee you that they are using no known distribution but something they specifically designed for their use.

Also, the XP the are or were using is probably a hardened version specifically designed as well for their needs. Sensationalist headline is sensationalist......
 
Nevermind, I just read the article, those guys are freakin idiots. They allowed a unsecured, non hardened WinXP machine on board and then they blamed windows for their virus issues? :rolleyes: Time to fire the whole IT security department and start over. (Or perhaps they did and that is why they are using Linux now only properly hardened.)
 
ManofGod said:
Yeah, they needed an OS they could update to and Linux, in this case, fits their needs. However, I can guarantee you that they are using no known distribution but something they specifically designed for their use.

Also, the XP the are or were using is probably a hardened version specifically designed as well for their needs. Sensationalist headline is sensationalist......
Click to expand...

Eh, I doubt NASA would send up an LFS in-house cook-up. Color me a skeptic, but with Debian/RH being as good as they are these days it makes no sense from either $$$$ or manpower standpoints to cook up a custom Linux and then have to test and debug.
 
Stoly said:
plus its free
Click to expand...

I would not use that as an argument in a life critical environment like the ISS. After all, free is not always equate to good. (Usually, you get what you pay for.) However, in this case, the support probably is not free.
 
Skripka said:
Eh, I doubt NASA would send up an LFS in-house cook-up. Color me a skeptic, but with Debian/RH being as good as they are these days it makes no sense from either $$$$ or manpower standpoints to cook up a custom Linux and then have to test and debug.
Click to expand...

You might be right but, it seems to me they do have special needs, amirite? :D
 
ManofGod said:
You might be right but, it seems to me they do have special needs, amirite? :D
Click to expand...

Yea, they have a need for an update to libpng and libjpg served up by Allan to not completely break their GUI.

/Arch joke
 
Sad thing is.. cut defense spending by a fraction and you could get a whole new space station! :p
 
"in 2008, a Russian cosmonaut brought a laptop aboard with the W32.Gammima.AG worm, which quickly spread to the other laptops on board."

Yep, totally Windows' fault. :rolleyes:
 
ManofGod said:
Yeah, they needed an OS they could update to and Linux, in this case, fits their needs. However, I can guarantee you that they are using no known distribution but something they specifically designed for their use.

Also, the XP the are or were using is probably a hardened version specifically designed as well for their needs. Sensationalist headline is sensationalist......
Click to expand...

I'm kind of surprised that they didn't do this from the start.....
 
I worked at NASA for a few years. They love free software and have a couple Linux douches that push their crap into everything. The only real virus protection they use is a network firewall.
 
I'm pretty sure its not about stability and reliability, its more about "we needed budget cuts"
 
if they wanted stable and reliable why didn't they try using something that wasn't a decade old, like you know... Windows 7
 
Putz said:
if they wanted stable and reliable why didn't they try using something that wasn't a decade old, like you know... Windows 7
Click to expand...

Possibly because the ISS is like 15 years old, and almost no work environments upgrade to every new version of an OS. They get used until they wont work anymore for the most part. They probably upgraded to XP a few years after it came out as it was.
 
Also, who wants to send a bunch of new PC hardware up to ISS to run a new os? Just throw linux on there and be done with it. Upgrading servers etc, must be a royal bitch 200 miles up.
 
I'm mostly surprised they weren't already on Linux. The vast majority of science and research types I know have always run Linux.
 
Oh good grief... another Linux v Windows fight. Each OS has its strengths. Whatever they ran on XP could still run on Win7/8 or Server 2008/2012, it also could run just fine in Linux. OS's are like swiss army knives. There is always a correct tool for opening a can of beans. One is not better than the other, each is only as good as the user using it.

2.png
 
schizrade said:
Also, who wants to send a bunch of new PC hardware up to ISS to run a new os? Just throw linux on there and be done with it. Upgrading servers etc, must be a royal bitch 200 miles up.
Click to expand...

Especially when lift costs are $10,000 per pound.
 
Axiomatic said:
Oh good grief... another Linux v Windows fight. Each OS has its strengths. Whatever they ran on XP could still run on Win7/8 or Server 2008/2012, it also could run just fine in Linux. OS's are like swiss army knives. There is always a correct tool for opening a can of beans. One is not better than the other, each is only as good as the user using it.
Click to expand...
Yes.... which is why I'm surprised they weren't already on Linux as that seems the best tool for the job.
 
artimusbill said:
Possibly because the ISS is like 15 years old, and almost no work environments upgrade to every new version of an OS. They get used until they wont work anymore for the most part. They probably upgraded to XP a few years after it came out as it was.
Click to expand...

Good point. It would probably be unfeasible to upgrade the equipment on the ISS, with the fuel required to ferry the equipment up to the station.

I love Windows as much as the next guy, but it IS easier to get newer versions of Linux to work on older hardware. Besides, I doubt they're going to be playing many games up there.
 
In space, no one can clean your rootkit.

I don't think the switch to Linux was unreasonable, but neither would have been upgrading to Windows 7 or Server 2008 R2 (preferably the latter of those two). At this point, updated "NT 6.1" based OSs are proven stable.
 
Skripka said:
Yea, they have a need for an update to libpng and libjpg served up by Allan to not completely break their GUI.

/Arch joke
Click to expand...

I actually gave a loud chuckle at that. Couldn't explain what was funny to anyone that heard me.
 
I wonder why they are going with debian? Don't get me wrong I like debain and it is what I use. Just with them using RedHat Linux and Scientific Linux(which is based off Redhat enterprise) you would think they would stick to one of them. That way you have the same package manager setup on them and whatnot. Just seems to be more simple.

JimmayLong said:
I am sure they will blame Linux when they don't update it as well..
Click to expand...

Yea really.
 
Good for them. They can make there own custom linux distro for themselves internally , reliability factor jumps through the roof and better security to boot.

NASA should have done this ages ago honestly. But Government will be slow.
 
From the article:
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.”
Click to expand...

Face it Microsoft, your latest incarnation of Windows is so out of touch with enterprise that even the ISS is dumping your products.
Apple did the same thing in 2009, dropping its XServe line in favor of iPads and other media-consumption devices.

While it's sad, I wouldn't want to be aboard the ISS and have a BSOD.
 
swatbat said:
I wonder why they are going with debian? Don't get me wrong I like debain and it is what I use. Just with them using RedHat Linux and Scientific Linux(which is based off Redhat enterprise) you would think they would stick to one of them. That way you have the same package manager setup on them and whatnot. Just seems to be more simple.
Click to expand...

Debian is by far, one of the most flexible and customizable Linux distros/branches around.
This does not include Ubuntu (11.XX and beyond) or anything based on the Ubuntu sub-branch.

As for RHEL (including Scientific Linux), it is probably the most stable branch of Linux, but it is also the most rigid, by far.
Debian will be much easier to build custom programs and applications for.

On a personal note, I don't care for RPM package manager.
I much prefer DPKG or YAST2, as they make things easier to fix if there are issues with package discrepancies imo.
 
Axiomatic said:
One is not better than the other, each is only as good as the user using it.
Click to expand...

If we were talking about Linux, and to a less extent, UNIX, then I would say you are correct.
The OS is only as good as, and is only limited by, the user.

However, with a proprietary OS like Windows, there are physical limits that one can hit, preventing them from going any further, short of reprogramming and recompiling the entire OS.
Windows is not a flexible OS, and I'm not talking about the front-end applications, I'm talking about the back-end, and that registry of its is just a nightmare of security holes.
 
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.”


the fracking jackass's... it was windows xp for god sake, have they had their heads in a hole in the ground since i swapped to windows 7?

geez... no wonder we can't build the enterprise, fracking nasa is a bunch of idiots

geez !~!
 
jfolds said:
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.”


the fracking jackass's... it was windows xp for god sake, have they had their heads in a hole in the ground since i swapped to windows 7?

geez... no wonder we can't build the enterprise, fracking nasa is a bunch of idiots

geez !~!
Click to expand...

Srsly?

Most of the internet runs Apache, and not Windows server....because...you guessed it, stability and reliability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top