16 ms·

The priority-based process scheduler says "Hi." Like being able to run multiple things on your computer without having the less-important tasks block more impo

by glimcat 15y ago

The priority-based process scheduler says "Hi." Like being able to run multiple things on your computer without having the less-important tasks block more important tasks? Thank the Apollo computers.

Udo 15y ago
You misunderstood my comment. I didn't say "nothing good ever came out of NASA".
- glimcat 15y ago
  For every billion-dollar probe that comes in over budget, NASA tends to have a thousand little tidbits that end up getting reused over and over. The topic is taking a run at the perennial arguments about monolithic vs. incremental development and ad-hoc vs. recyclable solutions - but NASA isn't really a great whipping boy for this one.
  - Udo 15y ago
    As I tried with the other responses to criticisms of my original post, I'd like to steer away from blanket judgements about NASA. While I personally believe there are a lot of systemic dead-ends, wasteful processes and general mismanagement going on and that this in combination with a widespread anti-science stance in politics is responsible for the failure of our space program (as defined against my completely arbitrary vision of what could have been achieved in this area) - I originally intended to make a statement about my much more personal experience that huge, complex (...) software projects are a recipe for failure: sure, you can still pull it off if you're Microsoft or IBM or SAP, but most of us are not. Edit: Also offtopic, but I feel compelled to answer this: [..] NASA tends to have a thousand little tidbits that end up getting reused over and over. I would go even further than that and assert that we shouldn't be aligning science and space exploration with the derivation of practical applications in mind at all. It should be done regardless. I'm not one of these "let's concentrate on terrestrial problems first" Earth-isolationists. Quite the opposite: my criticism of NASA is that there has been too little actual science and exploration.
    - glimcat 15y ago
      NASA does both science and the engineering necessary to achieve the science. You can do something for its own sake and still achieve more pragmatic benefits.
      - Udo 15y ago
        Okay, I give up - this isn't remotely related to anything I said or wanted to say :-)

by glimcat 15y ago

The priority-based process scheduler says "Hi." Like being able to run multiple things on your computer without having the less-important tasks block more important tasks? Thank the Apollo computers.

Udo 15y ago

You misunderstood my comment. I didn't say "nothing good ever came out of NASA".

glimcat 15y ago
For every billion-dollar probe that comes in over budget, NASA tends to have a thousand little tidbits that end up getting reused over and over. The topic is taking a run at the perennial arguments about monolithic vs. incremental development and ad-hoc vs. recyclable solutions - but NASA isn't really a great whipping boy for this one.
- Udo 15y ago
  As I tried with the other responses to criticisms of my original post, I'd like to steer away from blanket judgements about NASA. While I personally believe there are a lot of systemic dead-ends, wasteful processes and general mismanagement going on and that this in combination with a widespread anti-science stance in politics is responsible for the failure of our space program (as defined against my completely arbitrary vision of what could have been achieved in this area) - I originally intended to make a statement about my much more personal experience that huge, complex (...) software projects are a recipe for failure: sure, you can still pull it off if you're Microsoft or IBM or SAP, but most of us are not. Edit: Also offtopic, but I feel compelled to answer this: [..] NASA tends to have a thousand little tidbits that end up getting reused over and over. I would go even further than that and assert that we shouldn't be aligning science and space exploration with the derivation of practical applications in mind at all. It should be done regardless. I'm not one of these "let's concentrate on terrestrial problems first" Earth-isolationists. Quite the opposite: my criticism of NASA is that there has been too little actual science and exploration.
  - glimcat 15y ago
    NASA does both science and the engineering necessary to achieve the science. You can do something for its own sake and still achieve more pragmatic benefits.
    - Udo 15y ago
      Okay, I give up - this isn't remotely related to anything I said or wanted to say :-)