Shuttle costs

Well the CMU tests reproducability in the process. It does not in any
way guarentee that the process will produce acceptable results. In the
case of linux the people in charge (Linus, Alan, et al) are more
interested in expanding the base of linux both in hardware support and
in users and are willing to for go other things. Places like Lockheed
and Trw where the standards are not number of users or compatibility
but reliability and reproducability, produce code with much lower bugs
in the code.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
> > According to the CMU software process tests, the linux kernel
group
> > got a four out of five. This means that technically as a group
they
> > can bid on NASA contracts.
>
> Four is a damn fine score. Still, I think the space shuttle software
> group is rather better. They've had 17 bugs in the last 11 versions
of
> 420,000 lines. That's 17 total. Not per version. Total.
>
> Anyway, it's the process, not the people. I'm sure the Linux group
> could do this stuff too if they had too. But the current Linux
process
> isn't right for hard realtime, safety critical work.
>
> See http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html for more
> info.
>
> > By the way of all the software houses that has ever taken the test
> > there are only 16 companies that have got a four or above. This
test
> > is a requirement for NASA contracts. You must get above a 4.0 to
bid
> > on contracts.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> >
> >>Ryan Healey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Would linux type reliablity be good enough?
> >>>
> >>According to what I read about this, Space Shuttle software has
> >>SERIOUSLY low bug rates. Like an average of 10^-5 bugs per line of
> >>code. The software industry 'standard' is 10^-2.
> >>
> >>Linux wouldn't be in the same ballpark. To get that low needs a
> >>really seriously heavyweight process. Or atleast that is the
> >>only currently practical way to get that.
> >>
> >>--
> >>- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@t...)
> >>
> >>"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
> >>
> > technological
> >
> >>civilization?"
> >>- Gerard O'Neill
> >>
> >
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@t...)
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological