Score one for rulebreaking<p>Für einige sei die Arbeit von Jahrzehnten dahin – nämlich für jene, die in dem vorgeschriebenen, nun aber gesperrten Verzeichnis gespeichert haben. Wer sich nicht an die Vorschrift hielt und seine Voten, Urteile und Textbausteine auch lokal auf dem Dienstrechner speicherte, hat die Daten nun noch.<p>Which Google puts as<p>"For some, the work of decades is gone - namely for those who have stored in the prescribed, but now locked directory. Those who did not abide by the rule and also stored their votes, judgments and text modules locally on the service computer still have the data."
Well let me rant a bit. I have been living in Germany 9 years. My gut feeling is that here if technology is not about diesel engines then it is considered more of a problem than a resource. Something to be worried about in a world that is getting more and more competitive and automated. One example? People still prefer to pay in cash here, many stores don't accept cards. You might be tempted to think if it works... it's ok. But this attitude impacts all things tech. Programmers salaries are low, data analytics jobs very hard to find, BI is still done in SAP/Oracle, etc.. So if you want to make a good salary in Germany you need to go into the more traditional stuff like finance or engineering management, which is what eventually will hurt the country as the talent either is not well used or just flat out leaves the country.
I know many public and/or regulated services use Windows because of regulatory constraints. Is that the case here too? I do not want to be that guy, but if not, for what the courts use this and if it's not regulatory, a chromebook or linux distro booting straight into OpenOffice would work well. You cannot say 'people don't know how to operate it' as for this kind of work it is trivial (as is proven by this being replaced by a typewriter). It would even work on the same machine aka no hardware cost.<p>So it has to be regulatory?
Google Translate to English:
<a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://m.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/experten-warnten-schon-2017-it-katastrophe-am-berliner-kammergericht-kam-mit-ansage/25163810.html&xid=17259,15700023,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271,15700283&usg=ALkJrhjLCU8zyZPBiPHC5Imhj5S_xk2wIA" rel="nofollow">https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...</a>
So how do you write fire-and-forget systems? Typewriters can't become hopelessly insecure by leaving the typewriter sit on a shelf for a year. On the other hand, you can't leave a Linux box unattended for more than a couple months before it's hopelessly insecure. Is the solution unikernels, or what? I think we'll have to find ways to make software that stands the passage of time a bit more.<p>I feel like it's really hard to build software that survives on its own for even a tiny bit of time. Are we in an era that will leave no usable artifact behind?