31–40 of 128 posts
Most have replaced the unit with a floppy simulator that takes an SD card (or USB key?).
The load takes just as long. But it doesn’t fail (forcing you to get an undamaged disk and start over).
I wonder if that’s why they say they got rid of the floppy disk. Maybe they maintained the underlying tech.
> While SACC’s hardware is decades old, its software is constantly refreshed by young Air Force programmers who learn software development skills at Offutt’s Rapid Agile Development Lab. I am not so sure I want “Rapid Agile” development for something that literally controls nuclear missiles.
I don't see why Agile or other similar approaches can't handle reliability and safety as the primary goals. Things change often in most other software because that's what people demand of it. No one will be changing the Nuclear launch systems often where never ending iteration is a threat.
One thing that agile solves that introduces the most instability into a project is the ability to constantly alter scope. It takes a lot of good management to make sure that changes in scope don't have secondary or tertiary order effects, that would be my focus for a high reliability agile process.
Is it even possible to fully secure the supply chain?
Introducing any outside code or hardware is a liability. Unless there is a really urgent problem, I think they should just freeze their entire computer platform, that way they can eliminate any chance of any new threats.
I can not possibly imagine any cost justification for doing so. I have no problem with taxpayer money being spent to keep ancient computers running forever. Keeping our nuclear missiles secure is priceless.
What new features do they even need that they don't have now?
The thought of some ux monkey using npm anywhere near our ICBMs makes my physically ill.
> While SACC’s hardware is decades old, its software is constantly refreshed by young Air Force programmers who learn software development skills at Offutt’s Rapid Agile Development Lab. I am not so sure I want “Rapid Agile” development for something that literally controls nuclear missiles.
Indeed. "Move fast and break things" might not be the best idea in this particular case.
Is this article a troll, or is the Air Force just trying to be 'cool'.
* Their maintenance is well understood - every fault that is likely to happen has happened and has been recovered/repaired from. It's very unlikely there will be new surprised down the road.
* Their degradation is well understood - it's been around long enough that parts have failed and have been repaired.
* Isn't easily communicated with through modern tech - no USB ports, no network access - people aren't picking up floppy disks in the car park and plugging them in.
* Robustness to electromagnetic interference - the bits are so big that a few electrons being knocked out of the way won't cause an issue.
* Software well understood and tested over time - the only way to _really_ trust software is by having it work without failure.
* Simple implementation - because there's no computational space or power, it only does the minimal it needs to. It's not rendering a GUI, it's not running some complicated neural network.
Old hardware isn't sexy, but it does work. I still use an oscilloscope with a phosphor display and a programmable power supply with instructions on a floppy disk. Floppy disks occasionally fail, but there's no substitute for making good backups over several mediums/locations.
> While SACC’s hardware is decades old, its software is constantly refreshed by young Air Force programmers who learn software development skills at Offutt’s Rapid Agile Development Lab. I am not so sure I want “Rapid Agile” development for something that literally controls nuclear missiles.
I mean (man), this is totally RAD.
They're making Star Wars and Star Trek references, so 'rad' is cool too, right?
Or it's an early/late 1st April story.
So when we upgrade the hardware, how much of it will be sourced from China? Is it even possible to fully secure the supply chain? Introducing any outside code or hardware is a liability. Unless there is a really urgent problem, I think they should just freeze their entire computer platform, that way they can eliminate any chance of any new threats. I can not possibly imagine any cost justification for doing so. I hav…
That's not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is, what features would the Commander in Chief want?
So when we upgrade the hardware, how much of it will be sourced from China? Is it even possible to fully secure the supply chain? Introducing any outside code or hardware is a liability. Unless there is a really urgent problem, I think they should just freeze their entire computer platform, that way they can eliminate any chance of any new threats. I can not possibly imagine any cost justification for doing so. I hav…
"What new features do they even need that they don't have now?" That's not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is, what features would the Commander in Chief want?
" Air Force software development hubs like Boston-based Kessel Run or Los Angeles-based Kobayashi Maru" Is this article a troll, or is the Air Force just trying to be 'cool'.
Why wouldn’t the Air Force be full of geeks?