Live data from Hacker News

Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

bsky.app

71–80 of 379 posts

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#71

[flagged]

Just imagine the aliens capture a probe and try to use Windows. What will they think of us?!

First they laugh.

Then they wanna just cry when it brings down their whole starfleet with a virus that they have no immunity to ;)

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#72

[flagged]

Just imagine the aliens capture a probe and try to use Windows. What will they think of us?!

Don't worry, it will stop them at installation and demand internet access and creation of a Microsoft cloud account.

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#73
post #47

Why on God's green earth is Windows running on the Artemis spaceship?

What should they use for email?

Literally anything else. In 1992 we did email on the command line with green screen terminals

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#74
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not letting Microsoft off the hook here, but if you have an expensive metered connection and you're trusting clients (especially a modern personal computer of any operating system type)to play nicely with bandwidth, that's 100% on you.

That's a really sorry state of things, then. There's zero trust in software now, in the literal sense. How did it get that we live in a world where you can't trust a client to enforce its own documented behavior? How did it get to be the user's fault for not using OS and hardware level measures and not the software vendor's fault when the "Automatic updates" toggle is a no-op?

Software design is not really my wheelhouse so I can't comment meaningfully on that, but on the networking side I can very confidently say it was a poor architecture. You simply cannot assume that all of your clients are going to be both 1) non-malicious and 2) work exactly as you think they will.

Link saturation would be one of the first things that would come to mind in this situation, and at these speeds QoS would be trivial even for cheap consumer hardware.

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#77
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really sorry state of things, then. There's zero trust in software now, in the literal sense. How did it get that we live in a world where you can't trust a client to enforce its own documented behavior? How did it get to be the user's fault for not using OS and hardware level measures and not the software vendor's fault when the "Automatic updates" toggle is a no-op?

Software design is not really my wheelhouse so I can't comment meaningfully on that, but on the networking side I can very confidently say it was a poor architecture. You simply cannot assume that all of your clients are going to be both 1) non-malicious and 2) work exactly as you think they will. Link saturation would be one of the first things that would come to mind in this situation, and at these speeds QoS would…

Well, on the software design side, there's plenty of scenarios where undocumented behavior crops up on unexpected network interruption. In the example above, Windows can even pre-download updates on metered connections during one time period, then install those updates during another. The customers really can't take the blame for that, IMO.

I think overall society has rapidly deteriorated in software quality and it is mostly because of the devaluing of software design. No one expects quality from software, everyone "understands there are bugs", and some like to take advantage of that. And so the Overton window gets pushed in the direction of "broken forever good luck holding the bag if you use it" rather than the more realistic "occasionally needs to restart IFF you hit an issue and it takes less than <10 seconds and has minimal data loss".

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#78

This talk about off-the-shelf hardware in space makes me wonder, given the clear line of sight, if it would be possible to detect their Wi-Fi access points' beacons from Earth. I'm not a "radio guy" and don't know if this would be impossible, simply on the basis of physics, due to the presumably low radiated power from the APs and the limitations of the size of typical antennas on the ground. (Obviously it's possible…

Probably not possible. Their Wi-Fi access point is inside the capsule, the capsule is made from metal and probably shielding the signal somewhat. Maybe even quite a lot if it's intended to provide some radiation shielding. Also it's low power as it only needs to work inside the capsule, at the given distances signal attenuation will make it almost impossible to pick up anything.

Re: Artemis computer running two instances of MS outlook; they can't figure out why

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a previous job I was a developer on a medical instrument that used Windows to run the UI. Before everyone gets all up in arms about it, Windows/Linux UI & database with external microcontrollers handling real-time control is a very common architectural choice for medical and industrial equipment. To the point where many Systems-on-Module (SoMs) come with a Linux-capable ARM processor and a separate, smaller proces…

Isn't this what Embedded Windows was always for, like for use in medical equipment, ATMs, POS, PLC, oscilloscopes, etc? Basically stuff that's supposed to be fire-and-forget, run 24/7 and that the user shouldn't be able to tinker with. And also what group policies were for, that can disable the user from installing any software? Am I wrong to assume that the fuckup was on your end, for using the wrong tool and not co…

> Am I wrong to assume that the fuckup was on your end, for using the wrong tool and not configuring it properly?

Not at all. I agree that it should have been locked down and only privileged accounts should be allowed software update. But the system auto-booted into an Administrator account so it really wasn't a surprise that eventually someone would do something stupid.

I will say that this was for Windows NT retail, not Windows NT Embedded. At that point, getting an NT Embedded license practically required sacrificing your firstborn child. It was only when Microsoft got to Win XP Embedded that the license didn't look like it was written by a team of lawyers who already knew that they were perpetually in Hell.

Post reply on HN