3 ms·
In fact, the simplicity of the older systems usually lead to greater stability. Not to mention that systems based on pieces of different ages (as is the case du
by MAGZine 12y ago
In fact, the simplicity of the older systems usually lead to greater stability. Not to mention that systems based on pieces of different ages (as is the case during upgrades) is likely much more unreliable, because you do not know how the equipment will interact with each other.
Take for example Vancouver's Skytrain. Last year, there was a failure of some equipment that resulted in a system-wide shutdown. Media got in and was appauled that Skytrain still uses equipment run on floppies. The old software/hardware wasn't what broke down, though--it was some NEW equipment more recently installed to manage the PA system.
Why fix what ain't broke? ESPECIALLY when people's lives are on the line.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago>In fact, the simplicity of the older systems usually lead to greater stability. Remember when that control tower in Chicago got attacked by some crazed employee? Do you know why there isn't just a simple DR switch over? Because the system is so antiquated, something like that is too problematic to implement. Thus all the cancelled flights for a week at the world's busiest airport. >ESPECIALLY when people's lives are on the line. Its more risky to have a pig with lipstick system run by COBOL graybeards one foot in the grave than to run things properly in a modern system with modern redundancy and modern features. Last I heard, the code that runs many of these systems is non-auditable because its just a pile of spaghetti code on top of spaghetti code. Its "works" in the same way an 80 year lady on her third hip can "walk."
- logfromblammo 12y agoIf government contracting is involved in the replacement, the new code is all spaghetti too, because the requirements are "make it work exactly like the old system", and the work is spread out to 5 different subcontractors: JoeCo, LarryCo, MoeCo, CurlyCo, and ShempCo.