replacement of dozens of laptops with XP

The Windows XP is ten years old officially unsupported operation system already - it's just punishable, that NASA already didn't upgrade it (with more modern version of Windows or something else). It's very easy to infect ten years old unpatched version of Linux with rootkit as well - and the quality of Linux or Windows OS has nothing to do with it at all.

Excellent move, I applaud that.

The USA subsidized the ISS with 100 billions of dollars, the all other countries with 50 billions of dollars only. And the Windows are generally widespread at desktops and laptops. I'm not USA citizen and patriot, but it would be more logical for me to keep the Windows at ISS and to punish the responsible person from NASA for lack of corresponding maintenance of operating systems at ISS. If the USA really want to keep their superiority in cosmic space, all these details are, what can influent it gradually.

that a community overseeing a Linux distribution can issue quick notices and quick patches

Whereas the Microsoft issues patches on daily basis. But how it will help the situation, if the ISS crew will leave their operation system without upgrade ten years, as it did with previous OS? The lack of regular maintenance and upgrade is, what makes the OS vulnerable.

It's not just about plain reinstall of computers at ISS, but about development of new computer programs for it and for systematic training of astronauts for it. I do perceive it as just plain waste of public money at the moment, when the upgrade of Windows would do the very same job. Instead of it, the NASA trolls will ask for another subsidizes from Congress. It's just you, American taxpayers, who are sponsoring this migration.

Don't worry Linux is free and will cost the taxpayer nothing. Windows on the other hand is quite expensive.

While Linux is technically free, the "some assembly required" part does cost money.

The problem with security is, that while the community can and does issue patches, you wouldn't install one to a mission critical machine without making sure that it really works as intended, and doesn't contain any backdoors and security holes, which means you need your own in-house developement and auditing team that easily costs just as much and then some.

And wasn't it Debian that got their software repositories hacked a couple years ago and a faulty binary package was spread around that made their SSH encryption useless because the random number generator would output predictable numbers? It was apparently up there for several years before anyone noticed.

It seems that no one likes WIndows 8.

What a spectacular failure for Microsoft, and Monkey Boy Ballmer, it's incompetent CEO.

I can't believe my eyes when I read the previous comments! Nasa should have improved the OS by switching to another Windows version? Maybe Vista???? I am a computer professional, and every system manager I know, if forced to work with Windows, will choose Windows XP, as the most stable and less bugged version! And do you really think you can put Windows 7 or 8 in a 10 years old notebook? And for security: You can find security holes if you can read, study, debug and execute in a protected environment the source code of your software. Otherwise you have to trust Microsoft (or NSA?).

@ValeriaT: Do you really think that an astronaut can't manage to learn how to use Debian in 5 minutes?

Do you really think that an astronaut can't manage to learn how to use Debian in 5 minutes?

That depends on whether they already know how to use linux in general. You can't just pick it up and start using it, if you have no idea where anything is and what is what, unless by "use" you mean open the web browser and try to watch youtube, which probably won't work right out of the box in a vanilla debian install anyhow.

Do you really think that an astronaut can't manage to learn how to use Debian in 5 minutes?

At the case of emergent repair or improvisation the previous whole-life experience with operating system could be an advantage.

every system manager I know, if forced to work with Windows, will choose Windows XP, as the most stable and less bugged version!

Windows 7 are OK too and they're improved with respect to virus vulnerabilities protection.

ASTRONAUTS MUST NOT PROGRAM COMPUTERS! They have to execute the programs professional land crew developed for the mission they have to accomplish! Every hour spent on the ISS costs HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS of dollars, they have not to waste time with antiviruses or clumsy patch system! A Linux system can be managed from remote in the same way as in local, without ever rebooting it.

Everyone has one year to move off XP as it goes out of support April 2014, so no more security fixes.
The 'modern' Micro$oft OS's are increasingly unwieldy, gimmick laden and aimed at dumb users and caged administrators. There are folders in Win 7/8 that even the administrator doesn't have rights to access. Administration is also optimised for Domain admin tools. I'd be surprised if they had a domain controller and roaming user profiles on the ISS.
Their laptops should be 'tools': Optimised, testable and provable for their specific purposes. With all 'risks' documented and mitigated. In their place I would deploy a commercially supported build of Linux too. But at home I still use Win 7 for a domestic environment.

I wonder why they chose Debian 6 over 7 as 6 might only be supported for another year.

... A Linux system can be managed from remote in the same way as in local, without ever rebooting it...

Ksplice for the win!

It doesn't sound like these machines are anything other than dumb terminals as I'm sure the important machines are all running ADA code on old 486's, so rebooting probably isn't an issue.

Some interesting reading on the ISS computer systems here
http://spaceref.c...omputer/

Do you really think that an astronaut can't manage to learn how to use Debian in 5 minutes?

That depends on whether they already know how to use linux in general. You can't just pick it up and start using it, if you have no idea where anything is and what is what, unless by "use" you mean open the web browser and try to watch youtube, which probably won't work right out of the box in a vanilla debian install anyhow.

It's an operating system.

My move to Linux over the years, was more prompted by the stupidly crappy standards of the Microsoft software, than anything else. If Microsofts software wasn't so "smash my face into the desk" or "smash the computer up" fucking idiotic corporate moron bullshit, I would not have done every thing I could possibly do, to get away from these arseholes and their crapware.

Linux = "Oh thank god for that!" :)

It's more like Linux was the only OS s--tty enough to 'upgrade' to while still working on their ancient laptops.

The problem with security is, that while the community can and does issue patches, you wouldn't install one to a mission critical machine without making sure that it really works as intended, and doesn't contain any backdoors and security holes, which means you need your own in-house developement and auditing team that easily costs just as much and then some.

Sorry, but Windows, a black box, is even worse in this regard.

And wasn't it Debian that got their software repositories hacked a couple years ago and a faulty binary package was spread around that made their SSH encryption useless because the random number generator would output predictable numbers? It was apparently up there for several years before anyone noticed.

That we see the open process of handling these vulnerabilities is a strong point in Debian's favor. Do you really believe Microsoft doesn't have similar issues? We just don't hear of them.

And the Windows are generally widespread at desktops and laptops.

ValeriaT - You aren't a scientist are you? It's rare to find a science environment where the researchers aren't familiar with some sort of Debian-like OS.

Regarding aeronautics, availability is paramount. Having to deal with gratuitous upgrades every few years, and the specter of having your existing hardware [and apps] becoming incompatible is a big problem.

Regarding cost: how much? In relative terms (and disregarding beneficial savings), I'd guess not much. Factor in the benefits and it becomes a debate on how much is saved.

All this security stuff is WAY overblown. I run XP on the net with updates turned OFF and NO antivirus running. No problems for 3 years.
Now some will say the machine is hacked and I don't know it, if so how can you tell??

I would think the ISS computers are not connected to the general internet so the infection potential is much lower or non existent.

@drhoo: If you read better the article you can find the answer: Computers where infected by a usb key brought on by an astronaut.

Hows an astronaut suppose to get porn on board without his USB key. It gets kinda lonesome up there ya know

That's why you're not an astronaut.

I like Ubuntu better than windows, have to try Debian... free freedom and quality...

Debian stable releases take a while to unfold. This means that the rest of the linux world is using newer versions off the (OS) software for years, so no security issues and no in house development is needed.

You always audit code you put into a mission/security critical machine, because the patches themselves may be buggy or have unforeseen side effects. Just because a patch exists doesn't mean you can just put it in blindly without testing that it works as intended.

If security is of concern, there's no advantage in running linux if you let just anyone submit code to your system without checking what it is yourself.