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!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:09:13 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <codsrp$hi6$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <20619edc.0411251028.3e249bf3@posting.google.com>
 <oSFxff11_F@VB1162.spb.edu>
 <mailman.123.1101469316.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <YqLpd.4429$NU3.3815@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <mailman.127.1101498753.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1101690553 17990 134.91.1.34 (29 Nov 2004
 01:09:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:09:13 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6606
Date: 2004-11-29T01:09:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
 
: I'm not mistaken. What you say does not disprove my hypothesis. Look, I 
: probably know the story as well as you guys. And the story is that an 
: Ada software component from Ariane 4 was reused for Ariane 5 without 
: change. This and the fact that there was an hardware mismatch resulted 
: in a BUGGY software system. Just answer this: how was the system fixed? 
: Did they change the hardware? No. Ergo, the software was at fault, not 
: the hardware.

An analogy, taken further to the point of absurdity:
If Intel decides to change the meaning of the DEC instruction to mean that a
value is increased by one, not decreased, then a software system that is
built following earlier Intel specs is to be blamed for having bugs, and
that's it?
Or might there not be some other "items" in the software development process
to be blamed for the mistake?


-- Georg Bauhaus