Microsoft Windows Flight Edition
This is a possibility that has been questioned on numerous blogs and has sparked mostly comical responses about the stability of various operating systems. I wanted to gather the opinions of some “experts” in the industry. So I posed a question to them.
“For $10,00,000, would you board a test-flight on an airplane running a flight-version of Microsoft Windows? If not, would you consider the offer if the plane was running on either Mac OS X or Ubuntu?”
- Colin King
Kerner engineer at Canonical Ltd (Ubuntu)
Aircraft normally triple redundancy, so Microsoft would probably cobble together Vista, Windows 98SE and XP.
- Jessica Gray
Software engineer at Google.
None of those systems is designed for that sort of operation and I know Mac and MS specifically list several things their software should be used for. IE and Safari don’t need to have the fail safes a flight control systems needs and would be prohibitively expense if they did.
- Benjamin Myers
Software Design Engineer at Microsoft.
Yes, even back when I hated Microsoft, my stuff worked at first and died later after I abused it.Mac, no. I’ve never worked on any Mac anything that didn’t need a lot of hand holding when asked to really grind. It’d give you a pretty death and then email your friends and relatives a catchy funeral march that Apple would own the rights to.Ashamed to say I’ve never heard of Ubuntu. I would trust Unix and Sun (at least the ones I worked on in late 1980s/early 1990s), but not Linux.
- Gary Clarke
Senior Manager at Amazon Kindle.
Are you kidding me? Someone would connect their seat-belt and cause a device-driver conflict. Flush the toilet and the flaps will extend in mid-flight.
- Chris Gamble
President of CRG Media. Former System Administrator at JPMorgan and Chase.
Windows: As long as its XP, and not an OEM install.
Mac: I’m sure it would be a nice ride, but you would spend all of the money you earn on in-flight upgrades.
Linux: I know I would get there safely, but all the money would be spent on Chiropractor bills.
- Abhinav Mishra
Programmer at Infosys (India’s largest software company).
If I have a Unix based parachute, I won’t mind.
- Robert Lindsley
Executive Producer at Atari
No, yes and no.
- Craig Muth
Former Sr. Systems Engineer at Lockheed Martin.
Not if its the initial release! If it is SP2 or later,Yes!
- Joe Wlad
Former Staff Engineer at United Airlines.Yes. As one who has worked in both aircraft flight testing and software certification to meet FAA requirements, all systems and software approved for airborne use must go through a rigorous development, testing and verification process.So the question is what systems would Windows be demonstrated on? If it’s passenger entertainment, the level of rigor involved to verify the software is more focused on quality (from a user point of view) than safety. If the OS supports flight-critical functions, then the level of rigor (and cost to certify) is much higher.If one just wanted to demonstrate the feasibility of using MS Windows on a display system during a flight test, you’d have to ensure that the secondary systems were using previously-certified software so that in case of any failure or malfunction the flight-test crew could shut down the Windows-based system and rely on the certified system to get back home.As an aside, certification of software to meet safety-critical requirements for commercial aviation is rather expensive. Experience has shown that it costs about $50 per line to certify software to the highest level of safety. For this reason, the operating systems used in these systems are usually small in size when compared to Windows.
- John Gilman
Former Business & Technology Consultant at Microsoft.
Of course, I would prefer Windows embedded over any OS for stability…I just to make sure the hardware drivers and other applications are written up to snuff.
- Kurt Brust
Sr Linux Platform Engineer at Wachovia. Former Sr Linux Consultant at IBM.
Maybe if it was running in a virtual session under Linux!
- Tadd Moor
Director, IS&T Infrastructure at Rooney Holdings Inc.
No, I wouldn’t. Partly because I’m burned out on air travel an – even free travel; and partly because you didn’t mention from who Microsoft “liberated” the technology.
- Geoff Beckman
Owner of Beckman & Associates.
No for two reasons:
1. I can’t wait 18 months for it to launch.
2. I bought my flight bag in 1998, and the luggage compartment doesn’t support it anymore.2. Ubuntu isn’t scheduled to add stairs to the plane in the next release (right now you have to climb hand over hand using a rope), and I’m tired of being called a “newbie” or MS-100Z3R when I request that someone look into adding seats and restrooms.No to the others as well:
1. Mac OS X will fly me to San Francisco, Monte Carlo, or Rio, but will not support a return trip, because Steve Jobs doesn’t think it’s a cool experience to fly to Ohi
- John Swanagon
Senior Systems Architect Manager at Avaya. Former Principal Consultant at Lucent technologies. - Absolutely. Let me qualify that by saying that I would as long as the plane, which includes the software, was cleared and certified by the FAA (or in the process of certification). There are varying opinions out there as to Windows’ stability, but I believe that it is a stable product. I would trust it to run the software on a plane.The other thing to remember too is the backup systems. If all else fails, the pilots could land the plane without the software. If the plane was so dependent on the software that a “manual” landing was impossible, then I would say absolutely not.
- Sanjay Vyas
Sr. Vice President at Aptech & Owner of Synergetics India.
Yes… if its version 3.0!
- Jason King
Senior Developer at Optus SingTel Pty Ltd. & Technical Director at Handle IT
Fee for boarding test flight: $10,000,000
Parachute: $2000
Standby recovery team: $10,000
MS Windows plane never getting close to even pushing back from the gate: Priceless!
- Hosun Lee
Former Technical Sales Specialist at IBM
Sure I would.
1) Microsoft makes quality software.
2) The publicity associated with a plane crashing when Windows crashing would be catastrophic enough for Microsoft to want to make sure it works.
3) Microsoft already powers my car, and I have a much greater chance of dying in a car accident than in a plane crash (knock on wood).
- John Ruxlow
Works for Thomson Reuters.
I would be willing to get on it, but I would want the money to go to my family if I didn’t make it. From what I am seeing on the news Microsoft couldn’t screw it up any worse than the FAA and plane maintenance groups already have it.
- Alan Crawford
Former Senior Systems Engineer at Trident Systems Inc.
Board it, yes. However, I’d be sure to get off and take cover before they started the engines, let alone attempted to get airborne.
For the other two – no. I don’t fly on planes running general purpose operating systems. While wild horses wouldn’t get me airborne on even Windows for Airliners (formerly Windows for Warships, previously Windows for Washing Machines, originally Bob), there are already plenty of planes airborne with subsystems that make use of specialized versions of the Linux kernel. Probably a fair number of systems using Window CE based systems too.
- Ray Miller
Former Project Team Leader at GE Aircraft Engines.
Windows: NO (especially Vista). Mac: Yes. Ubuntu: Yes
- Adrian Bugaian
Software Test Engineer at Endava.
Why not? It will be very very scary, but you will have something to tell you grand children.
Regarding the other 2: Mac is just good looking and thats all. Ubuntu… no… for such purpuses open software is really not suitable.
- Adam Dionne
QA Technician at CAPCOM Interactive Canada.
I would do it for free without hesitation.
LOL! One of the most comical posts I’ve seen in a while! My own responses:
Windows- Ask me when they move over to a *nix kernel.
Mac OS X- Because the plane would be a proprietary plane that only one person could manufacture it, and because only one airline carrier in the world could have it, and because that airline carrier would not be the best airline carrier, and because Apple would not take full advantage of the airline carrier’s capabilities, no.
Ubuntu- When I can apt-get install Slackware, yes.
And my own option:
Slackware- yes.
linuxcrayon
April 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I have to agree…lol All aboard!!!
XP Embedded Computers
April 28, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Mac & Ubuntu both are safe…
Mac flight will be costly, Ubutnu will be free
Owais
May 7, 2008 at 6:43 am