Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 01/21/2012 09:05 PM, Richard Pieri wrote: > Case in point, this article that just came down through Slashdot: > http://www.digitalbond.com/2012/01/19/project-basecamp-at-s4/ > > Imagine a highway or building or train or airliner being designed and constructed to the same standards that these SCADA systems were made. Take it another step: imagine medical equipment designed the same way that these SCADA systems were. Now be afraid because medical equipment really is designed the same. > > It gets worse: that medical equipment can't be updated. They can't be updated because changing anything will push them off spec, will violate whatever EAL the devices have, and will make them legally unusable for medical practice. Many of these are running old operating systems -- like Windows 98 old -- without any patches at all. And yet, we trust quite literally our lives to these things. These are serious problems, yes, but they are not a result of a licensing issue. They are about an immature profession. Think of it this way, if software engineering were formalized, we'd have to settle some problems. What is the standard language in which to write programs? What is the standard operating system that is run on computers? If we can't have a standard operating system, what is the standard API to which we code? Who owns these things? Would you pay Microsoft for the privilege to practice in your field? In some ways we are to blame. We software engineers have not taken our profession seriously. We have not created and/or joined the professional organizations, like doctors, lawyers, electricians, and pipe-fitters, to define and protect our profession. What has happened, sadly, is that we have a profession in which there are no standards and any newbe can come along create a new programming language because he or she did not like the existing language. If we are lucky, it looks something like previous languages, but this is not always the case. We don't steadily improve the tools of our craft, we destroy them and rebuild them new each and every time. How many programming languages and environments are needed? How many operating systems? If you look at electricians, they have a whole set of regulations about wire, connectors, methodologies, etc. Do we? Hell, if we compared ourselves to plumbers, we would re-invent the pipe for each job. > --Rich P. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |