24
Windows 3.1 saves the day during CrowdStrike outage — Southwest Airlines scrapes by with archaic OS
(www.tomshardware.com)
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
Once upon a time I couldn't understand why companies and governments still used ancient computer systems running DOS, Win3.1, or 9x, or computers like C64s. "Upgrade! Your new systems will be far more powerful and efficient; and that means they're better!" -teenage me at some point, probably.
However, as I've gotten older I've realized that it's because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While Southwest may spend more money than necessary on maintenance due to the ancient systems needing now-specialized skills, those systems are also time-proven to be as functional and dependable as they need them to be. Ironically, they might actually be more secure than most modern systems due to a combination of decades of specialized security/stability patches they've probably had and simple security-through-obsolescence.
Edit: misremembered the phrase, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Are there PS2 to USB dongles?
You just helped me realize all the people that make a big deal out of getting monthly "security" updates for their phones are probably just dumb teenagers!
I hate mandatory updates with a fiery passion
They were talking about major and feature updates. Security updates are actually pretty important.
To be fair to the kids, they are an entire generation indoctrinated with the religion of mobile devices being replaced annually and constant updates to everything to keep that dopamine hit as high as possible. They've been manipulated by big tech for profit.
So they spend more on maintenance, but the system is also dependable? That seems contradictory.
Not really. A machine that only breaks down every 10 years but is expensive to repair could be considered dependable and expensive to maintain. Similarly, a machine that has expensive parts which rarely fail within their expected lifespan could be considered dependable and expensive to maintain.
Edit: you're also ignoring the cost of finding and hiring people who know how to maintain the systems. The systems themselves could be dependable, but the skills required to maintain them are expensive.