I don't know how the taxonomy of degrees works in the US, but wouldn't computer science be considered either a mathematics or an engineering field? Also, there is a list of engineering and science-related degrees that are excluded, and computer science is not on it...
It's generally in the engineering school at universities. A CS degree might make the qualifications it's just that there's no reason to send a programmer to space right now. Maybe there would be a need on a Mars mission where you can't just ssh in from the ground but they'll probably want someone with another applicable degree.
They don't need a reason to send a programmer into space.
What they need is to send people into space that are smart enough to understand the myriad systems around the, maintain them, and conduct the various experiments and other tasks planned. Basically, they're looking for smart people that they can train to have the needed skills, rather than people that have the needed skills outright. (Since nobody actually does.)
A pure CS degree might put you at (an overcomeable) disadvantage, since they seem to value the ability to do experimental science. But it can and has been overcome, see:
True. From my perspective (I train astronauts and work in Mission Control) it's most important to be able to quickly learn a wide range of general engineering principles. You need to be able to understand how the International Space Station works, which in some cases requires a computer background and in other cases more of a mechanical background (and everywhere in between). Astronauts are constantly in some training program learning (or re-training) some aspect of their job. In some respect they are full time students.
Later than people think, maybe? My point is that they're expect to have a successful career first, rather than it being a job people apply to directly from college or grad school.
If there is an engineering school/college, then yes. Otherwise its in the liberal arts and sciences, usually (my personal preference, TBH). Look at the University of Oregon vs Oregon State, for example.
Essentially. Backups and updates are much more hands-on with Windows than with Linux. There exists bad software for both Windows and Linux, but there are more (seemingly..) awful applications running on Windows systems: ancient apps that are still being updated several times a year (no package manager to help), the deprecated databases those applications use...
There are good configuration management tools for both systems, and both systems are good at what they do. Just seems there's more awful things running on your average Windows server.
It should if you hire competent ones. One guy can maintain many many more Linux servers than he could Windows servers.
I had a job at an IT outsourcing shop several years ago. Before I got there, one guy administered some 50 Debian / Ubuntu servers. They needed two Windows guys to maintain half as many Windows servers.
