[Aloha]

I work in a field that operates under similar development constraints. (Namely it's a mature product in a mature field with well defined requirements) Because if this I regularly get calls from my customers wondering why their system can't do X or Y in the B way instead of the A way, and I have a similar conversation. Wherein I have to explain "no, that wasn't part of your requirements 5 years ago, if you want to change it, you'll need to pay us for more development", that normally eliminates the requirement for whatever it was they wanted pretty quickly.

Also, uptime is a factor, I've seen what windows looks like when it runs out of GDI objects, it's strange. But once you see it, you can explain to the customer the importance of regular reboot/restarts.

[hef19898]

I never understood why regular, and scheduled, reboots are concidered to be a problem to begin with.

[ggm]

It can come with exposure of hidden costs. So a pc which can only be assured to be correct by reboot cannot continuously monitor a flow process which cannot be interrupted for that reboot window. It has to be designed to work with two, or some kind of data buffering has to be designed in, or the specification changed to redefine to continuous(*)

Which btw is what should be done but.. it can cause rage

[*] may not be continuous or complete in all circumstances

[hef19898]

But a 787 works fine with those reboots being part of scheduled maintenance. So the issue is what exactly again?

[p_l]

Essentially changes in typical operation procedures at airlines broke previous assumptions about regular full aircraft power downs, which triggered both the 248 day bug and the current 51 day bug.

It used to be that an aircraft would get a full power down as often as daily, but as individual components got more reliable and external power easily available, it became common for aircraft to not be shut down fully between flight days.

[ggm]

Nothing. I respond to a question posing why it might be a problem. It didn't say "in a 787" it was "in general" I suggest a class of problem which it might surface in. The wider question.

All aircraft have schedules of maintenance. Requirements to reboot a computer periodically isn't onerous. It's not onerous but the insane costs of recertification are. Fixing this problem to not require reboot would be very expensive. Not just the FAA process burdens but the wider costs. 787 battery problems probably wrecked the entire profit of the model for years.

The Max flight safety issue on another Boeing aircraft may mean its never profitable. The industry is wierd.

[xattt]

I worked in healthcare where our EMR went into downtime for two hours on daylight transition days. It was extremely disruptive as we had to switch to a paper process for that time period that needed to get reconciled with the EMR at the end of the shift.

Unless you have a dedicated team doing that, preventative reboots and various “workarounds” sound great on paper for administrators but make for a shitty experience for people doing the actual work.

[hef19898]

Difference berween your examole and the reboot requirements of various aircraft: aircraft reboots hapoen in controlled environments, on the ground when the aircraft is out of operations and is done be dedicated, trained and certified maintenance staff. Those reboots, while funny on first glance, do not interfere at all with aircraft operations.