Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System?

[Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

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.