[Sunspark]

> If programming it was a school project for an 80s kid, might as well try to make its replacement a school project for a 20s kid. If a kid did it back then, the integration can't be that hard.

You need to find a decision-maker to agree to the liability of letting some kid implement a system today. What if something goes wrong and all the children roast alive or something? Then the parents would sue. It'll never happen today, people are terrified of being wrong so no is always the easiest answer.

Also, yes integration would be hard today. This same pinhead decision maker would require it to run on Windows for "support" and "security".

That 80s Amiga is probably incredibly reliable and robust with its real multi-tasking OS and doesn't require "security patches".

What a shame Commodore dropped the ball on it, it was ahead of its time.

[anyfoo]

> That 80s Amiga is probably incredibly reliable and robust with its real multi-tasking OS and doesn't require "security patches".

I generally agree with some of your comment, but this sentence confuses me a bit.

I'd argue that the only reason that it does not require security patches is because it's not attached to any network. Though, probably the only actual reason would be that nobody is looking too closely at the whole system, because that wireless communication system is a network. And we really were not good at keeping computers sufficiently secure from any network in the 80s...

(Besides, what does "real" multi-tasking OS mean here? And why is multi-tasking relevant for this job? It seems like in this case a simpler OS would be more reliable and robust, while still being able to perform the job.)

[Sunspark]

I am sure someone else can explain it better, but basically in the 80s you mostly only had a choice of 8-bit computers (like Apple, C64, etc.), DOS, Macs, Atari ST and Amiga. The 8-bit machines weren't really networking compatible or powerful enough to do more than 1 thing at a time (128k of ram, 1.02 MHz CPU, etc. though I suppose the 16-bit Apple //gs could have been a contender). Macs would have been way too expensive for this purpose. I don't think boards bought Ataris. A DOS PC could have run a multi-threaded program, but if an issue happened then I guess the whole system would go down. So that leaves the Amiga..

The Amiga was the most performant system, its components (i.e. audio, video, etc.) were all able to work independently of the CPU. It also came with 3 networking APIs built-in (one of which was TCP/IP) which probably helped a lot with the coding.

It was also the only machine with a true multi-tasking OS. Everything else was either co-operative or non.

If an issue happened with one piece, it wouldn't have brought down the whole system because everything was able to run independently.

As for security patches, I was expressing a bit of frustration there because I have seen over and over a Windows "security patch" introduce bugs or break functionality. You didn't have that problem back then with the Amiga. It just worked.

I agree the Amiga was a good choice for the time to administer multiple machines.. and it came with decades of support from the original programmer!

[Lio]

> A DOS PC could have run a multi-threaded program, but if an issue happened then I guess the whole system would go down. So that leaves the Amiga.

> It was also the only machine with a true multi-tasking OS. Everything else was either co-operative or non.

> If an issue happened with one piece, it wouldn't have brought down the whole system because everything was able to run independently.

The Amiga was an amazing systems and the best choice they had available to them at the time but...

it's easy to forget it lacked memory protection. That's one of the design decisions that made it run so well on the limited hardware of the time.

It also meant that if one of your multitasking programs went down there was a very high likelihood it would bring the rest of the system down too.

[anyfoo]

> but basically in the 80s you mostly only had a choice of 8-bit computers

Ah, that was my confusion. I thought we would compare with systems nowadays, to replace the Amiga.

> A DOS PC could have run a multi-threaded program, but if an issue happened then I guess the whole system would go down

Eh, not really. DOS was for almost all intents and purposes as single threaded as the other systems. Segmentation allowed for some sense of relocation, and this was used for TSRs as "background programs", but that's not much of a departure from any of the other systems you mentioned.

> As for security patches, I was expressing a bit of frustration there because I have seen over and over a Windows "security patch" introduce bugs or break functionality. You didn't have that problem back then with the Amiga. It just worked.

Yeah, but that was only because there simply was no untrusted networking. All the other systems fared the same in that regard. And had the Amiga survived, it would need exactly as much security patching as the other systems.

[xkcd-sucks]

> What if something goes wrong and all the children roast alive or something?

The real risk here seems to be "the HVAC stops working, the person who implemented it is indisposed/gone, and there is no entity to recover money from to get someone else to fix it"

[Sunspark]

Do you replace your working appliances and vehicles in your home in advance of their failure just in case? Or do you wait, and then spend the money for a repair? Perhaps you could have a backup system in a storage closet?

In the US, school taxes to a school are generally from the local neighbourhood and not the city at large, so advocating for spending to replace something that isn't broken might mean needing to take currently allocated funds from other programs if some contractor says they can only give you a new control system if you agree to let them replace all the boilers as well.

[tshaddox]

> What if something goes wrong and all the children roast alive or something? Then the parents would sue. It'll never happen today, people are terrified of being wrong so no is always the easiest answer.

I guess I sometimes agree with this sentiment, but this seems like an inappropriate place to invoke it. Is it really so insanely risk averse to get professional HVAC people to install and maintain the HVAC system for a large public facility?

[Sunspark]

If you mean in the past, this setup was probably state of the art back in the 80s. Multiple buildings networked together? Doubt that there were many HVAC guys setting that up back then.

If you mean today, sure, but why replace something that has worked so reliably without fail?