Windows for critical infrastructure (was Re: UNIX V7)

[Eric Smith]

Dave McGuire wrote:
> Do these people really believe PCs running Windows process their bank 
> transactions, maintain hospital databases, or run railroads?
Unfortunately there actually ARE hospitals using Windows servers for 
their critical infrastructure.  I've seen them, and I've seen what 
happens when they blue-screen.

I've heard stories about banks that have migrated their transaction 
processing from IBM mainframes to Windows, but they may just be stories.

I have no idea what railroads are using.

The US Navy at one point was switching from Unix to Windows.  They had 
major problems with this on the USS Yorktown, and had to tow it back to 
port.  I don't know whether they've completed the switch.

        "We are putting equipment in the engine room that we cannot maintain
         and, when it fails, results in a critical failure"
            -- Anthony DiGiorgio, civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet
               Technical Support Center in Norfolk

        "Although Unix is more reliable, NT may become more reliable 
with time."
            -- Ron Redman, deputy director of the Fleet Introduction 
Division
               of the Aegis Program Executive Office

Redman said that NT had been chosen for political rather than technical 
reasons.  Where's the line between stupidity and treason?

It's been more recently reported that the British Royal Navy is using 
Windows to run their nuclear submarines.

One of the best reasons not to use Windows for critical infrastructure 
has nothing to do with flaws in Windows.  Over and over again I've seen 
people have failures of Windows-based systems that were intended to 
serve a single purpose, such as control the HVAC systems for a large 
building, because some damn fool thought it would be a good idea to 
install a bunch of extra software on them, including games, and various 
random software downloaded from the Internet.

Eric