Glass Panel Longevity

Mxsmanic wrote:
How do you certify open source?

why should it be any different than proprietary stuff?

--Sylvain

Sylvain writes:

why should it be any different than proprietary stuff?

A total lack of control is one huge difference. A total lack of
accountability and liability is another. A total lack of
customer-oriented incentive for fixes and improvements is still
another. There are many differences.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

why should it be any different than proprietary stuff?

A total lack of control is one huge difference. A total lack of
accountability and liability is another. A total lack of
customer-oriented incentive for fixes and improvements is still
another. There are many differences.

you just made it clear that you do not understand how open
source development works. I don't even know where to start...

--Sylvain

In article ,
Sylvain wrote:

you just made it clear that you do not understand how open
source development works. I don't even know where to start...

not only that, but the troll doesn't understand anything about
certification. For those that care to learn, open source doesn't
impact certification. In all cases there must be configuration
control of the software and hardware.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Sylvain writes:

you just made it clear that you do not understand how open
source development works.

I understand exactly how it works, and so does the market, which is
why safety-of-life software (and much other mission-critical software)
tends to be proprietary.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sylvain wrote:
you just made it clear that you do not understand how open
source development works. I don't even know where to start...

Well, you could start by killfiling him like many of the rest of us have
done... Whether he is a troll or just an idiot, he's really not worth
wasting time on...

Bob Noel wrote:
not only that, but the troll doesn't understand anything about
certification. For those that care to learn, open source doesn't
impact certification. In all cases there must be configuration
control of the software and hardware.

Given the same inputs, the software should give the exact same results
when run multiple times... That is one of the reasons that I prefer to
have all my libraries statically linked to an executable instead of
using shared / dynamic linked libraries, OCXs, or whatever the MS term
of the day is for it... If my entire executable is contained in a single
file, I know that if I wrote it right, it will run the same way every
time I execute it... The idea that someone could change something on the
system (update a shared library, DLL, or whatever) and cause my program
to run differently is rather offensive to me... That's also one of the
reasons that I do not like Java... I went through the Y2K mess and saw
the problems that developed from 3rd party DLLs and such and how bugs
could be introduced into a system by something that you have no control
over and I didn't like it...

Recently, Grumman-581 posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
I don't know, but I would design the system that way. Even at the
level of integrated circuits, there are plug-in replacements for
obsolete parts, and I don't see any advantage to using unique
components in this kind of application.

Unfortunately, some of the people making the decisions in these
companies don't necessarily see it that way...
(rest snipped for brevity)

Just to be clear, I was referring to hardware components -- "chips", etc.
In hardware, there is usually more than one way to accomplish the same
task, and as specific ICs become obsolete, there is usually (not always) a
plug-in replacement available. The best designs will be based on
high-volume usage ICs, as those are most likely to be replicated or
replaced in the future.

I completely agree with what you are saying about software and interfaces.
All bets are off, and given the willingness of the public to endure
practices that pretty much assure them of having to spend money repeatedly
to gain marginal capability -- or in many cases to gain nothing -- I don't
see much hope of this changing.

But, if the subject is simply keeping a specific device working over a
long period of time, as I see it, the crossover between these two issues
is likely to be the availability of interface connectors, but even at
that, there are some work-arounds.

Neil

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:31:51 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

why should it be any different than proprietary stuff?

A total lack of control is one huge difference. A total lack of
accountability and liability is another. A total lack of
customer-oriented incentive for fixes and improvements is still
another. There are many differences.

you just made it clear that you do not understand how open
source development works. I don't even know where to start...

It is exasperating isn't it?

Roughly without going into a lot of detail:

Two things. The words "Open source" mean exactly what they say. The
source conde must be included with the application.

The certification of any Open Source application is no different than
the certification of propritary software.

--Sylvain
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:14:06 GMT, Grumman-581
wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:
not only that, but the troll doesn't understand anything about
certification. For those that care to learn, open source doesn't
impact certification. In all cases there must be configuration
control of the software and hardware.

Given the same inputs, the software should give the exact same results
when run multiple times... That is one of the reasons that I prefer to
have all my libraries statically linked to an executable instead of
using shared / dynamic linked libraries, OCXs, or whatever the MS term

DLLs work great and are easy to use but things can get interesting if
some one changes one as in an MS update:-)) They don't bother to
tell you what they changed in which module. They are both the strong
and weak points of the MS operating systems.

of the day is for it... If my entire executable is contained in a single
file, I know that if I wrote it right, it will run the same way every
time I execute it...

Well, usually as computers have been known to get confused. :-))

The idea that someone could change something on the
system (update a shared library, DLL, or whatever) and cause my program

Man,it must be boring with programs that do the same thing every time.
Where's you sense of adventure. The thrill of hunting for side
effects that weren't there when you first debugged the program. Side
effects caused in some code written by some one else some where in a
library that may contain hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

to run differently is rather offensive to me... That's also one of the
reasons that I do not like Java... I went through the Y2K mess and saw
the problems that developed from 3rd party DLLs and such and how bugs

Third party DLLs *could* be written in such a manner that they would
not cause problems but that's not the case. Plus they would make
certification almost impossible as the program code can change without
being checked against certification. I wonder when you refer to the
Y2K mess if you might be referring to a very large drafting program
where the programmers rewrote some standard DLLs? Update the OS, or
DLL and the program would quit. Put the original DLL back and strange
things could start happening to other stuff.

Then there was VB up through I believe version 5. Write a program,
compile it as stand alone so it contained all the necessary DLLs and
guess what. The DLL creation date was not the original creation date,
but the date the program was compiled. So installing that program
would (not could) result in newer DLLs being over written by older
DLLs with a newer creation date. Man but that one about drove me nuts
trying to sort out.

could be introduced into a system by something that you have no control
over and I didn't like it...

What? You don't like "side effects" and here I thought they were a
feature and not a bug. :-)) No sense of adventure at all.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com