You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #10: Well, ya see... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Well, ya see...
The story implies that the systems crashed because the power switch didn't work, and that when they were booted up again, the system didn't load the card-enabling software correctly. I may have misunderstood what they meant. I work closely with computers and have made bad assumptions about what people know about them before.

I suppose it is conceivable that the systems hibernated when the power switch was pushed, and when it was pushed again, the system came back up to where it was when the initial push happened. I can't imagine a stand-by causing the application to "disappear" and not load, but to still be able to recover the Windows state, and the article also implies that the systems performed an actual boot sequence, both of which imply a hibernation or off state. As far as it goes, these could be assumed to have been the root of the problem, but when a system comes out of hibernation, it starts up right where it was when it was put into hibernation, which means that the users would have had to close the program, which implies that they knew it COULD be closed, and therefore they should have known it COULD be launched.

The alternative is that which I outlined above... on startup, the app didn't load as it should have (again, these are single purpose machines).

Based on what I know about Diebold election systems (not as much as I'd like, I'm afraid), I'd guess that we're talking about a WinCE kernel, or a WinNT kernel, not a Win98 kernel (such as it is), simply because the system would need to have SOME form of security, and Win98 doesn't provide any. WinCE is a little better, but WinNT (as in Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003) actually has security built into it. These two kernels are also much less likely to hang at any point than Win98.

But even assuming a Win98 kernel (unlikely based on how they "update" their software), the systems would have had to have been in an unacceptable state at standby/hibernation or have failed to start properly, and that isn't a hardware problem, it's a software design flaw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC