[SystemSafety] Categorising "errors" [was: Stupid Software Errors]

[C. Michael Holloway]

On 5/4/15 7:21 PM, Drew Rae wrote:
> Does anyone else find it remarkable that a company is publicly 
> releasing information about a potential problem with a system, even 
> though their own understanding of how the system is used suggests that 
> the conditions that would cause the problem are unlikely to exist?
Yes, I find it remarkable. Getting such information from companies has 
usually been very hard, even with confidentiality and anonymity 
agreements in place. Rather than lamenting the stupidity of programmers, 
I'm inclined to be celebrating the (rare) openness of the lawyers. 
Recognizing, however, that the motivations for the release of 
information likely are not entirely altruistic.
> ... I'm optimistic enough to see this as a sign of progress.
Few people have ever called me optimistic (where 'few' is defined as 
<1), but I am encouraged by the disclosure. Public discussion of 
safety-related issues by industry may do more to reduce the likelihood 
of "stupid software errors" continuing to be made for many more years 
than any of the techniques and tools mentioned in this thread. Or, to be 
slightly more precise, the public discussion may prompt changes in 
industry practices that will lead to the regular use of better 
techniques and tools that otherwise would not be used regularly.

-- 
/*cMh*/

*C. Michael Holloway*, Senior Research Engineer
Safety Critical Avionics Systems Branch, Research Directorate
NASA Langley Research Center / MS 130 Hampton VA 23681-2199 USA
office phone: +1.757.864.1701 /often forwarded to/ +1.757.598.1707

The words in this message are mine alone; neither blame nor credit NASA 
for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20150505/818238cf/attachment.html>