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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:31:12 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <20619edc.0411251028.3e249bf3@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0411261258.7eb4a32b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1101519089 18393 212.85.156.195 (27 Nov 2004 01:31:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:31:29 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2004 01:30:37.0619 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2C01030:01C4D420] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6536 Date: 2004-11-27T01:31:12+00:00 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.