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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-23 09:35:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!coop.net!newsfeed1.global.lmco.com!svlnews.lmms.lmco.com!news1.lmtas.lmco.com!not-for-mail From: Gary Scott Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:10:46 -0500 Organization: LM Aeronautics Message-ID: <3B852B06.3F8E3D9A@lmtas.lmco.com> References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com> <3B834E5D.B0D26AB1@adaworks.com> <9lvsic$bet9s$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de> <0sDnZRVkz5qL@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3b83847d.1117251944@news.worldonline.nl> <3B83F498.E0F6C582@timesys.com> <7aTg7.10919$2u.78544@www.newsranger.com> <3B842DEA.E01CA1BE@timesys.com> <5M7h7.11864$2u.82854@www.newsranger.com> <3B85294F.BB780B7F@timesys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CAA261517.lmtas.lmco.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; LMTAS} (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12338 comp.lang.c:76468 comp.lang.c++:85190 comp.lang.functional:7655 Date: 2001-08-23T11:10:46-05:00 List-Id: Hi, Concurrent/Harris on the other hand has an excellent "real-time unix". http://www.ccur.com However, we've actually been successfully using Solaris in a real-time environment for avionics models. Adam Fineman wrote: > > Ted Dennison wrote: > > > > In article <3B842DEA.E01CA1BE@timesys.com>, Adam Fineman says... > > >I was in the Navy, and my second ship was the USS Gonzalez (DDG 66). I > > >was a member of the commisioning crew, in fact. I did not realize that > > >this had ever been tried (using a Windows box to interface with the > > >engines). I read the article linked elsewhere in this thread, and was > > >floored. The USS Yorktown going DIW (dead in the water) actually > > >happened while I was on the Gonzalez! > > .. > > >Using a general-purpose OS (even a "high-end" Unix) to control any type > > >of machine more complicated than a household appliance seems like a very > > >silly idea to me. > > > > Well, if you had been on a the commisioning crew of a FLT-IIA ship (DDG 79 and > > later, I believe), you would have been confronted with an engine controller > > using Unix (HP/UX to be exact). > > Sounds like a horribly bad idea to me. I don't have any particular > complaints about HP/UX as a general-purpose operating system, but it is > _not_ a real time OS and should not be used to run the engines of a > warship. > > > There was also a redundant engine > > monitor/controller running on NT 3.51 as an experiment, but as I said, it could > > crash totally and not affect anything. I believe the Navy just wanted to try it > > out shipboard to see how NT handled things. Both of these systems were of course > > coded in Ada for extra reliability. > > > Even if a perfect program were written (in any language) and it ran as a > process in a non-real-time general-purpose OS, it would be a bad idea. > > > > -- > Adam Fineman > Software Engineer > QA Department > TimeSys Corporation > > -- > Opinions posted here are my own. They do not necessarily reflect those > of the management or the other employees at TimeSys Corporation.