this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
364 points (95.3% liked)

Not The Onion

12269 readers
1619 users here now

Welcome

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!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments 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!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Windows 3.1, launched in 1992, is likely not getting any updates. So, when CrowdStrike pushed the faulty update to all its customers, Southwest wasn’t affected (because it didn’t receive an update to begin with).

Aside from Windows 3.1, Southwest also uses Windows 95 for its staff scheduling system.

One X user suggested that the company switch to Windows XP—it’s also no longer updated, and it can run Windows 3.1 applications via compatibility mode.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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".

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It becomes an issue when hardware is involved. I've seen industrial machines with 386 based touchscreens. Things as simple as a PS2 keyboard start getting hard to find and downtime costs a lot.

[–] m4xie@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Are there PS2 to USB dongles?

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

They exist, but they might not work with all hardware and keyboards. The problem with the industrial space is that nobody really thinks to keep something around like that just in case. Something stops working and then it's a scramble to get it back up and running again.

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They were talking about major and feature updates. Security updates are actually pretty important.

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Fair enough. I still wish I could just accept the risk and click a button that forfeits my use of Microsoft support or something

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

So they spend more on maintenance, but the system is also dependable? That seems contradictory.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.