[SystemSafety] Critical systems Linux

[Matthew Squair]

I must have missed something. Are we talking here about certifying a piece of software with no reference to its operational context and safety requirements? 

Matthew Squair

MIEAust, CPEng
Mob: +61 488770655
Email; Mattsquair at gmail.com
Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 5:29 am, Chuck_Petras at selinc.com wrote:
> 
> There is 
> 
> Open Source Automation Development Lab 
> Safety Critical Linux 
> http://www.osadl.org/Safety-Critical-Linux.safety-critical-linux.0.html [osadl.org] 
> https://www.osadl.org/SIL2LinuxMP.sil2-linux-project.0.html [osadl.org] 
> https://www.osadl.org/Presentations-and-Documents.safety-critical-documents.0.html [osadl.org]
> 
> Chuck Petras, PE**
> Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc
> Pullman, WA  99163  USA
> http://www.selinc.com
> 
> SEL Synchrophasors - A New View of the Power System <http://synchrophasor.selinc.com>
> 
> Making Electric Power Safer, More Reliable, and More Economical (R)
> 
> ** Registered in Oregon.
> 
> 
> "systemsafety" <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote on 11/20/2018 09:40:26 AM:
> 
> > From: "Chris Hills" <safetyyork at phaedsys.com> 
> > To: <systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> 
> > Date: 11/20/2018 09:40 AM 
> > Subject: [SystemSafety] Critical systems Linux 
> > Sent by: "systemsafety" <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> 
> > 
> > Hi All
> > 
> > A subversion of the thread to answer one of the points raised by Paul and
> > almost every Linux aficionado
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Paul Sherwood
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2018 8:54 PM
> > 
> > > One anti-pattern I've grown a bit tired of is people choosing a
> > micro-kernel instead of Linux, because of the notional 'safety cert',
> > > and then having to implement tons of custom software in attempting to
> > match off-the-shelf Linux functionality or performance. When application
> > > of the standards leads to "develop new, from scratch" instead of using
> > existing code which is widely used and known to be reliable, something
> > > is clearly weird imo.
> > 
> > The question is:- 
> > 
> > As Linux is monolithic, already written  (with minimal requirements/design
> > docs) and not to any coding standard
> > How would the world go about making a Certifiable Linux?  
> > 
> > Is it possible?
> > 
> > 
> > And the question I asked: why do it at all when there are plenty of other
> > POSIX Compliant RTOS and OS out there that have full Safety Certification to
> > 61508 SIL3 and  Do178  etc.?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > The System Safety Mailing List
> > systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20181121/8f262070/attachment.html>