5 ms·
Such a factory wouldn't be chasing the latest version of anything, it would probably be air-gapped.
by anotherhue 3y ago
Such a factory wouldn't be chasing the latest version of anything, it would probably be air-gapped.
- jabl 3y agoMost likely such Itanium systems would be running VMS or HP-UX rather than Linux.
- mrweasel 3y agoI was wondering is Itanium was still supported by HP-UX... It's apparently the only architecture supported by HP-UX currently. That's kinda sad. Must also be a little weird being on the HP-UX team, pushing out updates to a dying platform.
- ghaff 3y agoIn the enterprise software space, a ton of work goes into maintaining old platforms and backporting security patches and the like to old versions of software. That a not small part of what you're paying those companies to do.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bell-cot 3y agoPoint...but 's/would/should/g' is far too often the reality.
- josefx 3y agoJust because some of the hardware and its control software may be stuck in ancient times doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to upgrade other software or add other hardware that requires a newer kernel to function.
- fisf 3y agoBut in practice, it is often not possible or allowed to simply add other software or hardware to those systems. Those are delivered and certified as-is and upgrades are a no-go.
- phkahler 3y agoYeah they could upgrade the processor. And since it apparently runs Linux already, most the software should be relatively portable. Now if they're using a 9-bit serial UART there may be a problem...
- not_the_fda 3y agoThey wouldn't, its too much of a risk. The update could break the control software and bring everything down. If its working don't touch it, otherwise you might bring down production and lose lots of money. A new kernel brings no value to a currently working system.