471–480 of 589 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubuntu and Centos come pretty naked; what would you strip and why? Im asking because I run few instances with very heavy traffic and have no issues whatsoever. Just added nano and fail2ban and it runs with no issues for about 2 years now.
The Ubuntu message of the day when you log in on a shell runs curl to feed in advertisements. Pretty big attack surface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person who used to write navigation and control software for autonomous vehicles who occasionally gets downvoted for telling people that you really don't need a fancy RTOS for this stuff, you really don't need a fancy RTOS for this stuff. Linux is a very common platform for highly responsive robotic systems. I promise that their pid control isn't an Electron app.
Automotive ADAS systems generally require ASIL-D certification, which is much easier with an RTOS than Linux. I don't have much experience with real-time embedded Linux, but my understanding is that it is very difficult or impossible to certify to ASIL-D. Can someone correct me?
Also in my experience it might have been easier to reach the ASIL-D requirements, using a smarter combination of a Limiter on RTOS and using more generic code on something like linux for more of the code. This probably also would end up in more used and tested applications reaching more stability. (That's is partly outside ASIL-D).
Functional safety and ISO-26262 is much misunderstood in automotive development and architecture.
Also imho the certifications, well with out the safety case are kind of useless. You still have to make the assessment how you will find the problems with it in your use case. That might ever so slightly differ from what they certified. The automotive industry thou loves to have someone else to blame, e.g. the supplier of the RTOS, Compiler etc. Using Linux makes the blame game hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. No way the mcu responsible for braking would run an OS
This must be an acronym mixup. We’re talking about the Media Control Unit, i.e. the giant screen in the center of the dashboard responsible for zero safety-critical systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose my best questions back to you might be: 1) What concrete guarantees do you think you get from a special RTOS? 2) Which of those guarantees are meaningful to the scenario? 3) How (by what mechanisms) do you think the special RTOS guarantees the things that it guarantees? 4) Which of those behaviors are something that only an RTOS can provide?
Among other things, determinism, since timing can be guaranteed (within a margin). RTOS will run with consistent timing, which is guaranteed and facilitated by control over tasks priority and checks whether timings are met. You could probably do that without a hard RTOS, but without any sort of formal guarantee. So, it might work all fine and dandy, until it doesn't. Doesn't should not exist in a hard RTOS by definit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The iPhone has to reliably connect for emergency calls and provide accurate location. That can be life or death. In fact, "Apple isn't ready to engineer phones at a life-or-death standard" was a fairly common critique of the iPhone in the early days. In response, Apple ran a little PR campaign around their radio engineering efforts--they had a web page that showed all the cool-looking rooms for testing radios, which…
Didn't the iPhone use a dual processor set up like the other manufacturers at the time? One ui/app processor and a separate radio processor stack?
Even PC's have now a hidden baseband processor for the mission critical stuff, like backdoors and surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially considering that the engineer was partially blaming Bosch as a supplier that made these processes necessary. Bosch supplies VW (includes Audi, Seat, Skoda, ...) and various other large incumbents, as one of the biggest car manufacturer supplier. Why do people think they are considerably better off? Their practices are often equally ridiculous and dangerous. As a rat in that cage you do whatever you need to…
It sounds more like they didn't follow the specific way bosh requires you to use their HW. I highly double VW or others would use Bosh if hacks are required to get them to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the Toyota issues were not caused by any software bug. Most cases were caused by people hitting the wrong pedal. The others were caused by floor mats that were a bit too long, causing the gas pedal to stick. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the...
Regardless of whether the acceleration were caused by the software or not, the testimonies for the software experts called in to review Toyota's source code for the case were eye-popping: http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/toyota-unintende... > Skid marks notwithstanding, two of the plaintiffs’ software experts, Phillip Koopman, and Michael Barr, provided fascinating insights into the myriad problems with To…
And what was particularly negligent about Toyota's software practices that "more likely than not" caused issues with ETCS.
https://betterembsw.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-case-study-of-toy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the world's largest mining companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Tinto_Group
BHP (largest mining company in the world) and Rio Tinto (second largest) are to parts of Australia as Google and Facebook are to the Bay Area. And much less apologetic about wielding power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember Theranos? For every good success example, there is a good failure example.
Theranos never had a real product or sales and was a fraud from the beginning of institutional investment. Comparing them to Tesla is pointless and has been done to death.
My point is that for every good example of a success story (about startups in this case), there's a good story of a failure. And the failures are much more than the successes. If you want to discount the failures because they don't fit your narrative, then you should equally oppose the successes when they don't fit your narrative.
TL;DR my post is a reply to a post and should be seen in that context. You've taken my post out of context; please don't do that.
Moreover, I recently read the book Bad Blood and I found it interesting to get an inside look at a startup who present themselves better than they actually are. I don't believe that part of the Theranos debacle is so uncommon. The severity and unique market though, are. And, that's actually underlined by the Twitter thread (the pictures). Another similarity is the massive quitting and burnout of quality personal, the fear of being fired and standing up, low morale. Those are, IMO, interesting similarities.