On 2018-11-20 17:40, Chris Hills wrote:
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.?
While systemsafety may be the leading community for public discussion
around systems (and software) safety, it is not the only ML that has an
interest in this topic so I'm cross-posting to some other (including
Linux) lists in the hope that we may see wider discussion and
contribution.
_______________________________________________
automotive-discussions mailing list
automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
