Did NT caused the Yorktown's systems to fail?

This thread is proof that the Armed Forces have no business trying to defend 
us (or our sacred oil).  In this day and age, anonymity is the greatest 
weapon of all.  These jokers build battleships capable of sniffing out subs 
at hundreds of miles, but a fishing boat a few miles away at night with a 
bunch of divers experienced in underwater demolition will put it at the 
bottom of the ocean.  In this case, a few strings of bad code (wait, 
Microsoft only writes software with hundreds of megabytes of bad code, these 
days) is enough to bring Rome to a grinding halt.  Makes me laugh.


-- 
Jesse Bazarnick
President, Liquid Express Financial Services, Inc.
Commercial Finance Broker
401-369-1933 cell


"Anton Erasmus" <nobody@spam.prevent.net> wrote in message 
news:1122798918.e182e2417f5b736f9209f5e6d0c4da5f@teranews...
> On 31 Jul 2005 07:10:09 GMT, Guy Macon
> <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>John Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>Guy Macon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The navy used Windows NT to run a heavy cruiser.
>>>>>They had to tow the Yorktown home from its shakedown cruise.
>>>>
>>>> They could have had the same problem with any OS, including a RTOS.
>>>
>>>Sheesh, Guy, the silliness of your conclusion is mind-boggling!
>>>
>>>There have been high-integrity systems, including RTOS's, built since
>>>the '80's that were immune to that sort of _system_ error, much less
>>>_user_ error.
>>>
>>>Except for the suits who were trying to justify their selection of
>>>hardware, software, and integrator vendors, all the responses to the
>>>article, even in your list of URL's, recognized that the affair showed a
>>>catastrophic lack of professionalism in the selection, design,
>>>implementation, and testing of the whole system.  Note my use of order
>>>here -- it's obvious that selection by suits took place before
>>>engineering.  Some of the corrections were listed, and I'm sure others
>>>were buried too deep to be exposed.
>>
>>It appears to me that, your comment about mind-boggling silliness
>>notwithstanding, you agree with my conclusion - that the OS was not
>>the problem.
>
> [snipped]
>
> His order is "Selection" first. That implies they chose the wrong OS.
> If one starts of with the wrong OS, then even if all the following
> steps are done as it should be done, one will end up with a product
> that would fail. If one chooses the right OS, and the rest is done
> incorrectly, then the end result would still be failure. In a
> building, if the foundations are unsuitable for the final load, it
> does not matter whether the rest is built even a 1000% over the
> required spec. The building is still unsafe an will fail. One can
> still build an unsafe building when the foundations is within spec,
> but one cannot build a safe building if the foundations are not up to
> the job.
>
> It is the same in a chain of logic. If a certain step is wrong, then
> the rest is wrong no matter how correct it would be as a seperate
> chain of logic. Hence making a mistake at the end of a chain would
> influence the final conclusion only a bit. A mistake at the beginning
> of the chain makes the final conclusion totally meaningless.
>
> Regards
>   Anton Erasmus
>