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-Thread: 103376,ac9405996d0dcb7f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!news.wiretrip.org!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!transit.news.xs4all.nl!bnewsoutpeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer01.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspost00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!read.news.de.uu.net!not-for-mail From: bitbucket@invalid-domain-see-sig.nil (Robert Kaiser) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System? Date: 23 Nov 2004 10:35:50 GMT Organization: Sysgo AG Message-ID: References: <0UCrFDGa5NAr@eisner.encompasserve.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ns.sysgo.de X-Trace: 1101209225 read.news.de.uu.net 6941 213.68.67.98:36204 X-Complaints-To: abuse@de.uu.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6368 Date: 2004-11-23T10:35:50+00:00 List-Id: In article , Brian May writes: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Clubley writes: > .... > > However, the article seems to be getting various issues confused. For > example: > > * yes, the kernel has a huge number of lines in total. Now delete all > the lines for other architectures, delete all lines for drivers not > required, and count again; I think you will end up with a > significantly smaller number. I did that some time ago and arrived at some 1 Million LOC. This is significantly less than the 5.5 Million mentioned in the slides but still a bit too much for my taste. > > * number of switches to "ls" seems irrelevant, I don't think any of > these systems would need ls. Even if ls was required, it would be > easy to write a cut down version that just has the required > operations. True. However, the same argument (complexity) could just as well be applied to sections of kernel code, but the kernel can not be adapted/simplified so easily (because it is a monolith). > > * IMHO if open source software was designed from the ground up to be > used in mission critical applications, by people who know what they > are doing, then just because these people may be volunteers doesn't > mean it cannot be trusted. Very True. In fact, I think open source even has (or could have) an advantage in mission critical applications because of the potentially huge number and skill of reviewers. On the other hand, I have yet to see an open source project that does work the way you describe. I believe this is because volunteers tend to work on things that they consider "fun", and very few people consider documenting a fun thing to do.. > * security issues can be related to bugs that are life threatening, > but not always. Security issues are when somebody deliberately and > intensionally attempts to break something. On the other hands, > people involved with aircraft, generally speaking, want the aircraft > to stay in the air. That is one of the differences between safety and security. You are right that people involved with aircraft are concerned mainly with safety. However, a huge and complex trusted code base (such as 1 Million lines of kernel code) is a concern for both safety and security. > Simon> I recommend that Ada advocates with high blood pressure not > Simon> read page 21 of the PDF, especially the last line. :-) > > "Pilot (driver, walker) asserts intent"? > > Did I get the wrong page? Probably. The last two lines of that page read (Ada advocates with high blood pressure please look away): * Ada is smart - it knows better! * C would have just corrupted memory and flown Rob -- Robert Kaiser email: rkaiser AT sysgo DOT com SYSGO AG http://www.elinos.com Klein-Winternheim / Germany http://www.sysgo.com