[SystemSafety] automobile software

[C. Michael Holloway]

Greetings,

I completely disagree. The word "bug" is quite proper, both from a 
historical perspective, and a perception perspective.

For the historical perspective, see http://bit.ly/1NFneY7. Note also, 
that the Oxford English Dictionary gives as the "original" meaning of 
the term, first seen in print around 1425, as "An object of terror ...", 
though it does add "usually an imaginary one."

Concerning the perception perspective, I know far more people who find 
"bugs" more disagreeable and bad than "errors", "defects", "flaws" or 
any other such term.

-- 
cMh [ C. Michael Holloway | Senior Research Engineer | NASA Langley 
Research Center, MS 130, Hampton VA USA | Tel: +1.757.864.1701 ]

The words in this message are mine alone; neither blame nor credit NASA 
for them.



On 4/29/16 6:57 AM, Coq, Thierry wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I agree completely the word “bug” is improper.
>
> However, the word “error” seems to imply responsibility or negligence 
> that may or may not be there, that would be for a judge to decide.
>
> In the hardware industries, the neutral word that is used is the one 
> of “defect”.
>
> There shouldn’t be a difference, in this regard, between hardware and 
> software.
>
> Quality assurance and quality control in the hardware industries have 
> an excellent track record in dealing with the non-introduction, the 
> detection and the removal of defects… There are many methods, some of 
> them efficient, advocated to deal with this.
>
> Best regards,
> *Thierry Coq*
>
> Mobile +33 06 80 44 57 92
>
> www.dnvgl.com <http://www.dnvgl.com/>
>
> The opinions expressed here are my own…
>
> *From:*systemsafety 
> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] *On 
> Behalf Of *Chris Hills
> *Sent:* vendredi 29 avril 2016 19:23
> *To:* 'The System Safety List'
> *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] automobile software
>
> Hi All
>
> (having stired the hornets’ nest by started the thread on the 
>  definition of reliable SW )
>
> Can I ask that we stop referring to software “bugs” but call them 
> software ERRORS  They are an error and that does not have quite the 
> same dismissible cute association of “bugs”
>
> Part of the problem (with the industry and wider public)  is the 
> perception and acceptance that all software has bugs.  I think there 
> will be a less forgiving nature  or acceptance if we face reality and 
> say “software errors”    It may be semantics but try the tweet below
>
> “After a lengthy talk with @ Chevrolet management they admitted they 
> DO NOT acknowledge SW Errors: they are By DESGN @mtbara really?
>
> Not acknowledging errors gives a different impression that not 
> acknowledging the  “bugs” that  everyone has in software. Also saying 
> SW errors are by design is going to be interesting to defend.
>
> Regards
>
>    Chris
>
> Phaedrus Systems Ltd
>
> FREEphone 0808 1800 358    International +44 1827 259 546
> Vat GB860621831  Co Reg #04120771
> Http://www.phaedsys.com <http://www.phaedsys.com/> chills at phaedsys.com 
> <mailto:chills at phaedsys.com>
>
> *From:*systemsafety 
> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] *On 
> Behalf Of *Robert Schaefer
> *Sent:* 28 April 2016 19:30
> *To:* The System Safety List
> *Subject:* [SystemSafety] automobile software
>
> I’ve been following the twitter feed of Jonathan Zdziarski, a 
> forensics scientist.
>
> https://twitter.com/JZdziarski
>
> two of his recent tweets:
>
> 1.FYI @chevrolet <https://twitter.com/chevrolet> has informed me they 
> no longer support last year’s software, even if there are flaws 
> affecting safety/usability. @mtbarra <https://twitter.com/mtbarra>
>
> *51 retweets37 likes*
>
> Reply
>
> Retweet
>
> *51*
>
> Like
>
> *37*
>
> More
>
> 2.*Jonathan 
> Zdziarski*‏@JZdziarski<https://twitter.com/JZdziarski>23h23 hours ago 
> <https://twitter.com/JZdziarski/status/725411063718658048>
>
> After a lengthy talk with @chevrolet <https://twitter.com/chevrolet> 
> management, they admitted they DO NOT acknowledge software bugs; they 
> are BY DESIGN @mtbarra <https://twitter.com/mtbarra> really???
>
>
> **************************************************************************************
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain confidential 
> information and/or information protected by intellectual property 
> rights for the exclusive attention of the intended addressees named 
> above. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
> immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message 
> and its attachments. Unauthorized use, copying or further full or 
> partial distribution of this e-mail or its contents is prohibited.
> **************************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160429/081d3f32/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160429/081d3f32/attachment-0001.jpe>