[SystemSafety] Collected stopgap measures

[Matthew Squair]

Linux achieves fault densities comparable to that of the Shuttle software which are themselves considered very low. So, clearly doing something right. 

Matthew Squair

MIEAust, CPEng
Mob: +61 488770655
Email; Mattsquair at gmail.com
Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com

On 4 Nov 2018, at 10:11 am, Paul Sherwood <paul.sherwood at codethink.co.uk> wrote:

>> I wasn't intending any irony, and nor was Olwen afaict, given her
>> reply.
>> For the avoidance of doubt, I was intending sarcasm.
> 
> That's not clarified anything. What seems adequately sarcastic to you may miss the mark for others. Certainly your reply comes across as ad-hominem, to me, with no wit at all.
> 
>> As for your quibble about what "critical" means, I mean systems FOR
>> WHICH EVIDENCE HAS TO BE PRODUCED TO SUPPORT CLAIMS OF SPECIFIED
>> DEPENDABILITY. If you know a way of doing that without documented
>> requirements and designs, you're obviously a universal genius ...
> 
> I'm not claiming any genius, just doing my best to figure out reality, and distil the wisdom in all this trolling. From your pov maybe you think I'm trolling too. From my POV I'm just doing my best.
> 
> Linux (and lots of other FOSS) is used in critical systems - even safety-critical systems.
> 
> No requirements were ever created for Linux.
> 
> Nor architecture.
> 
>> ... and heaven forfend that anyone make the contrapositive inference.
> 
> I'm not going to bother attempting to parse that.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20181104/f42c293a/attachment-0001.html>