"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >> >>> Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o) >>> I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so maybe >>> not. >> >> Oh? You would consider publishing something like: >> >> In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792: >> >> delete "in blah blah blah" >> and substitute "in blah gubris" >> and add "otherwise frabble" >> to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5. >> >> a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble finding >> a legal firm to represent you. > > Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and second > I still don't understand where you are coming from.Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating something is totally worthless. This has the same value as my entering a Usenet message saying that Microsofts OS code is absolutely perfect. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to accept such a pronouncement. However, if I included a set of source code tests, and their results, so that anyone could duplicate them, and stated exactly what I considered those tests proved, at least some would check that out. If they disagreed they would be able to state the disagreement, and possibly the cure. Please don't remove attributes for material you quote. I have restored them above, I hope without error. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
FreeRTOS / SafeRTOS in a Medical Device
Started by ●November 21, 2008
Reply by ●November 26, 20082008-11-26
Reply by ●November 27, 20082008-11-27
In message <492DECF0.DA8B5994@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes>"FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>> >>>> Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o) >>>> I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so maybe >>>> not. >>> >>> Oh? You would consider publishing something like: >>> >>> In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792: >>> >>> delete "in blah blah blah" >>> and substitute "in blah gubris" >>> and add "otherwise frabble" >>> to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5. >>> >>> a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble finding >>> a legal firm to represent you. >> >> Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and second >> I still don't understand where you are coming from. > >Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating >something is totally worthless.What "secret method"? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●November 27, 20082008-11-27
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:492DECF0.DA8B5994@yahoo.com...> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>> >>>> Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o) >>>> I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so maybe >>>> not. >>> >>> Oh? You would consider publishing something like: >>> >>> In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792: >>> >>> delete "in blah blah blah" >>> and substitute "in blah gubris" >>> and add "otherwise frabble" >>> to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5. >>> >>> a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble finding >>> a legal firm to represent you. >> >> Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and second >> I still don't understand where you are coming from. > > Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating > something is totally worthless.There is absolutely nothing secret about a process that is published in an international standard and has many sections on exactly the techniques and measures you have to follow!> This has the same value as my > entering a Usenet message saying that Microsofts OS code is > absolutely perfect.Software is never perfect and this claim is never made - be it safety related or not - its about providing the evidence that gives you a very high level of confidence.> I don't think anyone would be foolish enough > to accept such a pronouncement.Of course not. See we agree on some things.> However, if I included a set of > source code tests, and their results, so that anyone could > duplicate them,This is exactly what is done, its just that you have to pay to get them, but we are not talking about a mass market product its very specialist. The tests are independently generated, independently reviewed, independently audited, and sometimes have to be signed of by government accredited bodies. Lots of people see them. Anybody can buy them. However, source code tests by themselves are meaningless unless you have the rest of the lifecycle evidence so you know what you are testing for/against. You could test your code for twenty years and still fail an audit within 30seconds when the first question is asked "please demonstrate your requirements tracing methods".> and stated exactly what I considered those tests > proved,I don't like the word 'prove', but the point of the tests is published in the standard. Again, nothing secret.> at least some would check that out.Believe me - they have been checked out by plenty of people.> If they disagreed they > would be able to state the disagreement, and possibly the cure.Yes. That is the point of independent review and independent audit. Agreeing again. With respect - I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about how these things work. When I get on an aeroplane I have confidence that the landing gear will work because I know the process the developer has had to go through to get them passed as fit to fly on that aircraft. I don't need to personally see the stress analysis that was performed to have that confidence. However, if I was to take that landing gear and integrate it onto another plane then I would need the entire lifecycle and design data so I could ensure the component was suitable for the new integration platform. I would not expect that data to be publically available though. -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org Designed for Microcontrollers 17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T�V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
Reply by ●November 27, 20082008-11-27
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:52toLaAP+kLJFAzI@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...> In message <492DECF0.DA8B5994@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer > <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>"FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>>> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o) >>>>> I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so maybe >>>>> not. >>>> >>>> Oh? You would consider publishing something like: >>>> >>>> In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792: >>>> >>>> delete "in blah blah blah" >>>> and substitute "in blah gubris" >>>> and add "otherwise frabble" >>>> to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5. >>>> >>>> a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble finding >>>> a legal firm to represent you. >>> >>> Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and second >>> I still don't understand where you are coming from. >> >>Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating >>something is totally worthless. > > What "secret method"?Come on now Chris - you know I get very uncomfortable when we start agreeing with each other. -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org Designed for Microcontrollers 17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T�V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
Reply by ●November 27, 20082008-11-27
In message <pwsXk.93760$E41.27366@text.news.virginmedia.com>, FreeRTOS.org <noemail@given.com> writes> >"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:492DECF0.DA8B5994@yahoo.com... >> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>>> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o) >>>>> I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so maybe >>>>> not. >>>> >>>> Oh? You would consider publishing something like: >>>> >>>> In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792: >>>> >>>> delete "in blah blah blah" >>>> and substitute "in blah gubris" >>>> and add "otherwise frabble" >>>> to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5. >>>> >>>> a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble finding >>>> a legal firm to represent you. >>> >>> Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and second >>> I still don't understand where you are coming from. >> >> Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating >> something is totally worthless. > >There is absolutely nothing secret about a process that is published in an >international standard and has many sections on exactly the techniques and >measures you have to follow!BTW both the main test suites are not "secret" it is just that you can't publish openly the *results* of the tests for the normal commercial reasons.>> However, if I included a set of >> source code tests, and their results, so that anyone could >> duplicate them, > >This is exactly what is done, its just that you have to pay to get them, but >we are not talking about a mass market product its very specialist. > >The tests are independently generated, independently reviewed, independently >audited, and sometimes have to be signed of by government accredited bodies. >Lots of people see them. Anybody can buy them.Exactly they are completely open. You do have to pay for them and adhere to the license (just like you do with FOSS)>However, source code tests by themselves are meaningless unless you have the >rest of the lifecycle evidence so you know what you are testing for/against. >You could test your code for twenty years and still fail an audit within >30seconds when the first question is asked "please demonstrate your >requirements tracing methods".Which is why it is difficult to do validation for a GCC compiler compared to a compiler from say Byte craft where they have all the documentation from day 1 and control the process. Also all the developers are known>> and stated exactly what I considered those tests >> proved, >> at least some would check that out. > >Believe me - they have been checked out by plenty of people.Lots. All with relevant qualifications and experience. The provenance of Plum-Hall and Perennial can not be questioned. The problem is, as usual, the FOSS people have set up a new model for working and are compiling when the rest of us won't play. However they won't play with the model the real world uses.>With respect - I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about how >these things work. When I get on an aeroplane I have confidence that the >landing gear will work because I know the process the developer has had to >go through to get them passed as fit to fly on that aircraft. I don't need >to personally see the stress analysis that was performed to have that >confidence. However, if I was to take that landing gear and integrate it >onto another plane then I would need the entire lifecycle and design data so >I could ensure the component was suitable for the new integration platform. >I would not expect that data to be publically available though.Good example. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●November 28, 20082008-11-28
Chris H wrote:> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>"FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes >>>> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o) >>>>> I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so >>>>> maybe not. >>>> >>>> Oh? You would consider publishing something like: >>>> >>>> In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792: >>>> >>>> delete "in blah blah blah" >>>> and substitute "in blah gubris" >>>> and add "otherwise frabble" >>>> to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5. >>>> >>>> a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble >>>> finding a legal firm to represent you. >>> >>> Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and >>> second I still don't understand where you are coming from. >> >> Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating >> something is totally worthless. > > What "secret method"?Oh? Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such test suites is publically available and criticizable? -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●November 28, 20082008-11-28
Chris H wrote:> FreeRTOS.org <noemail@given.com> writes >... snip ...> >> There is absolutely nothing secret about a process that is >> published in an international standard and has many sections on >> exactly the techniques and measures you have to follow! > > BTW both the main test suites are not "secret" it is just that > you can't publish openly the *results* of the tests for the > normal commercial reasons.I see no sign of testing code and methods in the ISO C standard. So, if you can't publish that code, or even the results of the tests, I see no value whatsoever in the tests. As I said before, it is obvious, according to the XYZ tests, that Microsoft software is uniformly correct and bug free. I have no need to expose the guts of the XYZ tests, nor the actual results, according to you, yet I should be taken at my word. Do you detect anything imbecelic in that statement? -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●November 28, 20082008-11-28
CBFalconer escreveu:> Chris H wrote:[snipped]>> What "secret method"? > > Oh? Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such > test suites is publically available and criticizable? >No Chuck, what he's trying to make you understand is that in the present World we have a lot of things that are "public" but that you have to pay for.
Reply by ●November 28, 20082008-11-28
Cesar Rabak wrote:> CBFalconer escreveu: >> Chris H wrote: > [snipped] > >>> What "secret method"? >> >> Oh? Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such >> test suites is publically available and criticizable? > > No Chuck, what he's trying to make you understand is that in the > present World we have a lot of things that are "public" but that > you have to pay for.And my point is that such 'secret' tests are useless. You can get away with this for something like an editor, where the failures are fairly evident. But you can't just say "I have tested this" without some reasonable backup. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●November 29, 20082008-11-29
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4930A967.6E40EB2A@yahoo.com...> Cesar Rabak wrote: >> CBFalconer escreveu: >>> Chris H wrote: >> [snipped] >> >>>> What "secret method"? >>> >>> Oh? Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such >>> test suites is publically available and criticizable? >> >> No Chuck, what he's trying to make you understand is that in the >> present World we have a lot of things that are "public" but that >> you have to pay for. > > And my point is that such 'secret' tests are useless. You can get > away with this for something like an editor, where the failures > are fairly evident. But you can't just say "I have tested this" > without some reasonable backup.Just to be clear - this thread was about validating components such as an RTOS for safety work. *Nothing* I have written in this thread is related to language compliance testing for compilers. If you want to continue the ti_t for tat with Chris about compilers please go back to the original thread, rename the subject of your posts, or start a new thread. -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org Designed for Microcontrollers 17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T�V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
