From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac9405996d0dcb7f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Krischik Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:07:34 +0100 Organization: None Message-ID: <1382893.4YCVa1nJKx@linux1.krischik.com> References: <20619edc.0411251028.3e249bf3@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0411261258.7eb4a32b@posting.google.com> Reply-To: martin@krischik.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1101544322 03 16940 yZK3XmNvPUnNp7V 041127 08:32:02 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de X-ID: S1NWx+ZarevjfprT2SEh+R9tlm4GVau8IZq2W90oCQ7SmspKn1KNkO User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6541 Date: 2004-11-27T09:07:34+01:00 List-Id: Marius Amado Alves wrote: > Rod Haper wrote: >> The "bug" that got "fixed" was the specification. That in turn >> necessitated a change to the software to comply with the updated >> specification. The "error" was in the old Ariane IV's specification's >> lack of applicability to the new Ariane V's requirements. The "failure" >> was one of design, not software implementation, and was independent of >> what language was or might have been used for the implementation. >> >> What is your point vis-a-vis hardware or software? The "conclusion" I >> draw is that you seem to be hung up on some agenda which ignores the >> simple facts of the case. > My agenda is to make sure things are called by their names with no > guilt. A bug is a bug is a bug. A specification is a software item. A > defect in a specification is a bug. I got the impression the text that > was being cooked up for the FAQs (wikibooks?) was avoiding admitting > that the error was on the software part and trying to blame the > hardware. An Ada bias forging a falsity. That had to be stopped. Sorry > if I misunderstood. But the specification was for a rocked with "vertical lift off" and the Ariane 5 - like the Space Shuttle - is a "tilted lift off". Who is to blame when one uses fiat punto tires for a max vel. of 180km/h on a ferrari with max vel. of 280km/h and all 4 tires explode at 240 km/h? The tires? The car? Or the person who choose to combine them? With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com