[SystemSafety] Critical systems Linux

[Chuck_Petras at selinc.com]

There is 

Open Source Automation Development Lab
Safety Critical Linux
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.osadl.org_Safety-2DCritical-2DLinux.safety-2Dcritical-2Dlinux.0.html&d=DwIBAg&c=-_uRSsrpJskZgEkGwdW-sXvhn_FXVaEGsm0EI46qilk&r=rbPGBTBfGPLzkUTSzOHB-Rjj23FmdetRDLPJOqC3KU3bIo1A1-_9e8WQ6fRbAK0e&m=sXEaRsZk1caSL0yil3csHEAavn1LLiB7VzUbANJz-D8&s=7QPzTqrU3j0_nLc93B40DGPh0m18jPMJbCf7FgKV_5M&e=
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.osadl.org_SIL2LinuxMP.sil2-2Dlinux-2Dproject.0.html&d=DwIBAg&c=-_uRSsrpJskZgEkGwdW-sXvhn_FXVaEGsm0EI46qilk&r=rbPGBTBfGPLzkUTSzOHB-Rjj23FmdetRDLPJOqC3KU3bIo1A1-_9e8WQ6fRbAK0e&m=sXEaRsZk1caSL0yil3csHEAavn1LLiB7VzUbANJz-D8&s=FKCB8yczqd5rtOT-wn1sKu5gfKO80KOFzON0Ka5JY10&e=
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.osadl.org_Presentations-2Dand-2DDocuments.safety-2Dcritical-2Ddocuments.0.html&d=DwIBAg&c=-_uRSsrpJskZgEkGwdW-sXvhn_FXVaEGsm0EI46qilk&r=rbPGBTBfGPLzkUTSzOHB-Rjj23FmdetRDLPJOqC3KU3bIo1A1-_9e8WQ6fRbAK0e&m=sXEaRsZk1caSL0yil3csHEAavn1LLiB7VzUbANJz-D8&s=h3_qBsVeURA1j1focDAnlHHUt09nHHaDrYcSjvp1_g0&e=


Chuck Petras, PE**
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc
Pullman, WA  99163  USA
http://www.selinc.com

SEL Synchrophasors - A New View of the Power System <
http://synchrophasor.selinc.com>

Making Electric Power Safer, More Reliable, and More Economical (R)

** Registered in Oregon.


"systemsafety" <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote 
on 11/20/2018 09:40:26 AM:

> From: "Chris Hills" <safetyyork at phaedsys.com>
> To: <systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> Date: 11/20/2018 09:40 AM
> Subject: [SystemSafety] Critical systems Linux
> Sent by: "systemsafety" 
<systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> 
> Hi All
> 
> A subversion of the thread to answer one of the points raised by Paul 
and
> almost every Linux aficionado
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Paul Sherwood
> > Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2018 8:54 PM
> 
> > One anti-pattern I've grown a bit tired of is people choosing a
> micro-kernel instead of Linux, because of the notional 'safety cert',
> > and then having to implement tons of custom software in attempting to
> match off-the-shelf Linux functionality or performance. When application
> > of the standards leads to "develop new, from scratch" instead of using
> existing code which is widely used and known to be reliable, something
> > is clearly weird imo.
> 
> The question is:- 
> 
> As Linux is monolithic, already written  (with minimal 
requirements/design
> docs) and not to any coding standard
> How would the world go about making a Certifiable Linux? 
> 
> Is it possible?
> 
> 
> And the question I asked: why do it at all when there are plenty of 
other
> POSIX Compliant RTOS and OS out there that have full Safety 
Certification to
> 61508 SIL3 and  Do178  etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181120/bd166713/attachment.html>