Why is NASA using OS X instead of Arch Linux, the operating system most suitable for rocket science?
>>52878999
Plot the following to see why:
Y: productivity level
X: time spent tweaking and fixing configs
Report back to us with the answer.
>>52878999
They're using Macbooks for the presentation.
They use Red Hat Linux for real work
>>52878999
Money makes people do reckless things
>>52878999
Because they don't use these computers to do actual rocket science. How can you be this retarded?
>>52878999
For reference, Google uses Macbooks, but everyone only uses them to SSH into their real workstations, which all run Ubuntu.
I'm guessing NASA is the same. Real work is going to be done on Linux machines, but Macbooks are great thin clients, and the company doesn't care about the premium price tag if it means they can outsource their IT to AppleCare.
>>52879158
>They're using Macbooks for the presentation.
I thought OS X was worse than Windows and Linux in all regards. You're confusing me /g/
How can NASA be so stupid?
>>52879158
>Red Hat Linux
I'll never understand this meme
>>52879245
>For reference, Google uses Macbooks, but everyone only uses them to SSH into their real workstations, which all run Ubuntu.
I find it hard to believe they're ssh'ing into Ubuntu since last time I checked they ran customized Linux distributions, and Ubuntu is geared toward desktops, rather than servers.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Chromebooks, which are pretty much only good for that?
But more to the point, the whole reason behind ssh'ing into remote machines is to get to a higher power computer. Given that the real computing power is somewhere else, it's nice to have an operating system that does that shit out of the box (meaning you only have the Linux and OS X options), and having a good desktop environment is important, hence people choosing OS X.
>>52878999
>Why is NASA using OS X instead of Arch Linux
Because they were using Solaris for most stuff and it's easier to port from Unix to Unix.
>>52879249
They're using them for the presentation to take notes.
>>52878999
>people in the board room are doing science and not celebrating a mission success
NASA is one of the biggest users of Linux. Below are some NASA software resources and information on their super computing division.
https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software.html
https://code.nasa.gov/
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/hecc/
>>52879258
https://www.suse.com/products/realtime/nasa-jpl-story.html Not RHEL.
>>52879267
I meant Ubuntu based, obviously they aren't running vanilla Ubuntu.
And workstations are desktops, I don't think they're running Ubuntu on their servers, probably some RHEL-based OS.
>>52879276
That pic clearly shows CDE which was proprietary until like 2013. Nobody at Mission control would use GNUshit.
Why not Windows, the best operating system?
>>52879267
I find it hard to believe they're ssh'ing into Ubuntu since last time I checked they ran customized Linux distributions
It's called goobuntu. Heavily based on ubuntu LTS of course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu
>>52879304
everyone works like this. not just at google.
you do basic development on your computer, commit/push your work, maybe do some work by ssh, and run complex code (or code on large datasets) remotely.
again, given this work style, you want a machine that does all that remote connection stuff well. that means you can choose between Linux and OS X. Add the criterion that you want a good desktop environment that doesn't *require* lots of customization, and that leaves OS X.
(and to be sure, you can customize OS X)
>>52879336
>>52879245
>Google uses Macbooks, but everyone only uses them to SSH into their real workstations, which all run Ubuntu.
lol no. The vast majority of development takes place on those Macbooks with nobody touching Linux until deployment testing begins. The only real exception is people that need to run long running tasks that require the cc cluster.
>>52879394
/g/-engineers frequently tell me that any serious professional uses Windows for AutoCAD and Photoshop
>>52879333
But that photo was last year.
>>52879425
Nobody that matters in software development uses Windows anymore. In SV and NY most good companies won't even bother interviewing people that admit to using Windows.
Paul Graham has even said that a company using a Microsoft stack is a huge red flag and Ycombinator usually refuses to invest in them.
>>52879442
I know your grasping at straws but that CDE panel has proprietary Solaris extensions that are not available on the open sourced version.
it's Solaris.
>>52878999
>they use Macs in the media room
WEW
LAD
>>52879475
I never claimed it wasn't Solaris. I never claimed it was Linux. I was just posting a photo showing a Mission Operations room where they aren't using Macs at all.
Macs AND women in Mission Control
/g/ is going to explode
>>52879562
More importantly no GNUshit.
All commercial OS's
Mac, Sun, and Windows.
>>52879562
>Macs
One Mac.
>>52879562
>Fuk Li
>>52879584
>media conference room
Stop trying, shit eater.
>>52879584
>another meeting
>note taking intensifies
>>52879578
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/hecc/support/kb/GNU-Compiler-Collection_87.html
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/free-software-in-space-gnu-radio-and-the-isee-3-spacecraft
Most of the software they push out is GNU too.
>>52879609
At least one of those definitely isn't a Mac.
Also, more note taking for the meeting later and PDF reading.
>>52879609
Only one of them is a Mac, the rest are Elitebooks. Not like you macfucks could tell the difference.
>>52879599
Those links show nothing; they even say they prefer the intel compiler. The second link is a bunch of neckbeards (non-nasa personnel) talking to an abandoned spacecraft. Shit did you even read the link you linked to?
also, meetings where the staff are wearing headsets are pretty important meetings.
because they have lives
>>52879333
Let me interject here for a moment, what you referred as GNUshit is actually GNU/shit, since shit actually is not something that can run without coreutils and whatnot, or as I've started to refer it, GNU+shit and so on, you know the rest anyway
>>52879637
Second link uses the same software they do, also feel free to read the licensing agreement on every piece of software NASA shoves out. The NASA Open Source Agreement is FOSS as fuck.
>>52879562
I'm still wondering if Fuk Li is a man or a woman.
>>52878999
That's the PR department.
You know, I'd even fucking consider Macbooks if they had clit mouses.
I just can't deal with not having a clit mouse.
>>52879267
I have a friend who works at Google.
They offer either MacBooks or Chromebooks for work machines, no Windows machines of any sort are allowed. Naturally most people pick Mac because Chromebooks are fucking garbage outside of Pixel models.
They actually use Google Docs for all their in-house docs and spreadsheets, which I found rather surprising. It's apparently "good enough" to handle mission critical data.
They have some weird custom modified Sublime Text clone for development.
They don't SSH into their "real workstations" because they don't have one. All of their data storage backend is in some form of linux for sure, but nearly every employee does their work on Macbooks and Google Docs via Chrome.
>>52879368
No, I mean they do all their work via remote. Literally the Macbooks are just for remoting. For "security" reasons, you aren't allowed to do work on the Macbook even if you wanted to.
>>52879562
This is just more proof that the moon landings never happened, and that NASA indeed has an incredible video editing department to thank for their so called "successes"past the Van Allen Radiation belt.
>>52878999
>Why is NASA using OS X instead of Arch Linux, the operating system most suitable for rocket science?
Had to spend the entire budget to try to stave off further budget cuts, so they bought the most expensive shit they could find without going OVER budget.
If there'd been more money left over, they'd have spent it on toughbooks.
>>52881365
That's not true and any Googler will confirm that the overwhelming majority of development work happens on Macbooks and Linux isn't involved at all until deployment testing or the cc cluster is needed.
>>52879457
>Paul Graham has even said that a company using a Microsoft stack
what like stackoverflow?
>>52883891
Yes exactly like Stack Overflow. In fact, Joel and Jeff have both talked about this and both are now using non-Microsoft stacks for their new companies.
>>52878999
cuz they have real work to do. They're not some fucking try hard wannabe free minded spirits
