Reply to post: Re: for the want of a nail

Re: for the want of a nail

"blaming it ALL on software developers is like blaming the Car Manufacturer for every punctured tire that car gets, even if say it ran over a nail."

Well, back in 1985 (ish) I bought a low end UK car that came as standard with "run-flat tyres", so that if a tyre was punctured you could relatively easily (and safely) get to a safe place to have the tyre looked at.

Five or so years later I had a different car (from the same group), allegedly a bit more upmarket. It didn't have run-flat tyres. One day on the motorway the steering wheel started vibrating oddly. I was travelling a around 70mph in lane 3 and made a hasty and rather uncomfortable retreat to the "breakdown lane".One of the front tyres had fallen to bits (manufacturing defect?). The breakdown lane wasn't actually a safe place to change a wheel, but hey, I got there in one piece.

Is that progress?

My current car (2012 model) doesn't have run-flat tyres either. And in the last few months it's had tyres replaced or repaired three times in less than 2000 miles, because of nails and screws through tyres.

Lots of cars currently on the market seem to come with remote sensors for tyre pressure. Based on comments from people who've had them, these sensors and associated logic cause lots of confusion and false alarms, perhaps because of poor system design?

Now, actually, because cars are in general based on a mix of "standards" and "implementations", people can already choose from a selection of differet manufacturers for (amongst other things) tyres. I could probably even choose to have run-flat tyres fitted to my current car. Because standards exist and interfaces are documented.

On a related note, mass market cars have had dual-circuit brakes for maybe three decades now (at least on this side of the piond). It's relatively tricky to have a total loss of braking capacity, because a car without dual circuit brakes isn't saleable. It's getting increasingly difficult to find a modern vehicle that isn't reliant on untrustworthy computer systems :(

How does that approach work for systemd? Systemd addresses aspects of a real and known problem, and addresses it in a rather poor way in many respects. Can system builders choose a plug-in replacement and expect it to address the same problems? Not at the moment, though *maybe* things will change. We can but hope.

So let's not hear too many suggestions that doing things properly doesn't matter because it isn't needed, is too expensive, and can't be done anyway. That's the kind of attitude that will quite possibly see Boeing bankrupt within five years, and hopefully see Boeing management and their regulatory puppets accepting responsibility when their actions lead to unpleasant consequences.

That won't bring Boeing's victims back, but it might encourage others to adhere to the proper standards in future.