bharatm writes "Wired has an article on the 10 worst sofware bugs.. From the article 'Coding errors have sparked explosions, crippled interplanetary probes -- even killed people. Here's our pick for the 10 worst bugs ever, but the judging wasn't easy.'" History's Worst Software Bugs Log in/Create an Account | Top | 592 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 592 comments 0: 585 comments 1: 487 comments 2: 350 comments 3: 85 comments 4: 57 comments 5: 38 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Predictions are hard by Teppy (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @10:31AMTEH MOST RETARDED IDEA EVAR by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:36AMRe:TEH MOST RETARDED IDEA EVAR by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.You get what you pay for by cryptoguy (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:42AMRe:You get what you pay for by jurt1235 (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @10:57AM Re:You get what you pay for NONSENSE (Score:5, Insightful) by mumblestheclown (569987) on Tuesday November 08, @12:16PM (#13979880) Some of you marked the parent comment "insightful" because it doubtlessly seemed like commonsense, reasonable analysis.However, you have been fooled. The parent comment is competely at odds with the article.The article shows largely a series of examples where you DID have HIGHLY PAID and HIGHLY trained professionals with plenty of experience and oversight, but nevertheless very significant bugs occurred. So, the real lesson from this article is not "you get what you pay for," but rather that "software development is very hard" and perhaps that "by nature of its hardness, we can expect critical flaws to pop up from time to time, even when highly trained, experienced, and monitored programmers are involved." [ Reply to This | ParentRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by cryptoguy (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:32PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by skiflyer (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:37PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by Bastian227 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:40PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by mumblestheclown (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:43PM Mangement problems (Score:5, Insightful) by gr8_phk (621180) on Tuesday November 08, @01:02PM (#13980303) "...trained professionals with plenty of experience and oversight, but nevertheless very significant bugs occurred."Some of the bugs reported in the story were not so much the fault of programmers, but of management. The phone network bug was a misplaced { character in a nested if-else construct. The code had already been though extensive testing, and then a small change was needed. Because it was a "minor" change someone said it didn't need to go through the extensive (expensive) testing again. It's always easy to point at the code or the guy who wrote it. Especially when the boss is the one tasked with finding out what went wrong. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Mangement problems by TFloore (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @02:16PMRe:Mangement problems by petermgreen (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:56PMRe:Mangement problems by HeroreV (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:46PMRe:Mangement problems by gr8_phk (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:32PMRe:Mangement problems by diablomonic (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:21PMRe:Mangement problems by HeroreV (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:48PM Re:You get what you pay for NONSENSE (Score:5, Insightful) by tyen (17399) on Tuesday November 08, @01:12PM (#13980361) (Last Journal: Thursday September 11, @07:50PM) ...you DID have HIGHLY PAID and HIGHLY trained professionals with plenty of experience and oversight, but nevertheless very significant bugs occurred...So, the real lesson from this article is not "you get what you pay for," but rather that "software development is very hard"... It doesn't matter how highly paid and trained your professionals are, if the environment that produces the software is not conducive to eliminating these types of flaws. Like if they are not given enough resources to test and QA the the projects they are assigned, there is no organizational commitment to take the time and expense to document properly, or leadership overrides technical objections to project timeframes, etc. Most of the cited projects could probably be classified as failures of project management rather than failures of the end product (the software) that these flawed projects produced. Yes, software is hard and the software profession should continue its efforts to improve quality, but that doesn't let the organizational culture, leadership and processes that produced the software in these cases off the hook.Why is it when the accounting profession makes spectacular mistakes that take down entire Fortune 500 class organizations, there is a critical analysis of the processes that led to these failures, and remedies often comprise prescriptive measures for these processes, but similar analysis for software failures focus upon the software flaw but not the environment that allowed the flaw to emerge? Now sometimes the remedy in the accounting case might not make complete sense (like SOX), but the point here is people don't look at just the end result (the accounting system transactions) of the accounting process. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:You get what you pay for NONSENSE (Score:4, Insightful) by loose_cannon_gamer (857933) on Tuesday November 08, @01:31PM (#13980543) I think both the parent and grandparent have some validity. I'm a master's student in CS who has managed never to take a software engineering class before this semester (and I graduate in December). This has been an eye opening experience. Let me point out some of the well known highly advocated techniques which, as far as I can tell, most graduates and many 'out in the field' software engineering professionals don't do that would help avoid these bugs.1. Design reviews, by peers and independents2. Code reviews, by peers and independents3. Regulary, organized, unit testing4. Correctness proving5. Documentation is about a bazillion forms6. Defect tracking7. Effective software process metrics measurement and improvement8. Continuing education9. Humility / egoless programmingThis list was assembled in about a minute off the top of my head. I work in a CMM3/4 type organization, and although there are processes for these things, most people don't use them, or consider them a hassle.So my point is, the parent is right -- creating good software, even when done by properly trained experts with great experience -- is hard. But the grandparent is right too -- doing all of the above to 'do it right' takes time and money, and many organizations, and by this I mean software process management as well as the actual engineers, don't understand the value / aren't willing to pay for or aren't willing to do all that work. And occasionally, as the article shows, the piper comes and takes his payment. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by twiddlingbits (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @01:53PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by rtb61 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:47PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by enjo13 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:39PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by fandog (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:10PMSometimes you do. by ichigo 2.0 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:05PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by cylcyl (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:20PMActually by geekoid (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:01PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by megarich (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:25PMRe:You get what you pay for NONSENSE by Skippy_kangaroo (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @05:52PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.The problem is more fundamental than competence by MOBE2001 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:53PM Re:Predictions are hard (Score:5, Insightful) by ZiakII (829432) on Tuesday November 08, @10:43AM (#13978939) Wonderful article. Twenty years ago I believed that writing software would soon become a licensed profession. (Need alicense to own a compiler, for instance.) I thought that the event that would inevitably trigger this is when a softwarebug caused a human death.This is like saying you need a license to operate a Soda Vending Machine because some idiot decided tipping it over trying to get a free soda was a smart idea. You might have to put warnings on compliers like do not code if you have no clue what you are doing, etc but requiring a license won't ever happen. I am sure there will be lawsuits in the future regarding software bugs, but any software being used where an error could cause a human death is going to have a corporation behind it, that can be held responsible. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Predictions are hard (Score:5, Insightful) by bunratty (545641) on Tuesday November 08, @10:55AM (#13979027) You might have to put warnings on compliers like do not code if you have no clue what you are doing Unfortunately, in my experience the ones who have no clue about what they are doing seem to be the most confident that they are top experts. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Predictions are hard (Score:5, Informative) by Jason Ford (635431) on Tuesday November 08, @11:31AM (#13979402) Several recent studies lend support to this observation. From an article [apa.org] at the American Pyschological Association:We've all seen it: the employee who's convinced she's doing a great job and gets a mediocre performance appraisal, or the student who's sure he's aced an exam and winds up with a D.The tendency that people have to overrate their abilities fascinates Cornell University social psychologist David Dunning, PhD. "People overestimate themselves," he says, "but more than that, they really seem to believe it. I've been trying to figure out where that certainty of belief comes from."Dunning is doing that through a series of manipulated studies, mostly with students at Cornell. He's finding that the least competent performers inflate their abilities the most; that the reason for the overinflation seems to be ignorance, not arrogance; and that chronic self-beliefs, however inaccurate, underlie both people's over and underestimations of how well they're doing. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Predictions are hard (Score:5, Interesting) by idontgno (624372) on Tuesday November 08, @12:33PM (#13980038) (Last Journal: Wednesday August 03, @11:23AM) I can't cite any documentation, but I recall seeing studies which show that the number one critical attribute of persistently optimistic personalities is a chronic inability to clearly see reality. Is this the same phenomenon?In the words of the old chestnut, "If you're calm and confident when everyone around you is running around in blind panic, you clearly don't understand the situation." [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Predictions are hard by servicemaster (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:00PMRe:Predictions are hard by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:28PMRe:Predictions are hard by Urusai (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @03:32PMRe:Predictions are hard by Hoi Polloi (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:58PMRe:Predictions are hard by stg (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @05:41PMRe:Predictions are hard by Garabito (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:59PMRe:Predictions are hard by bogado (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:24PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Predictions are hard by antifoidulus (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:35PMRe:Predictions are hard by Knetzar (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:22PMRe:Predictions are hard by 0racle (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:03PMRe:Predictions are hard by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:46PM Re:Predictions are hard (Score:4, Funny) by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) on Tuesday November 08, @12:48PM (#13980159) The tendency that people have to overrate their abilities fascinates Cornell University social psychologist David Dunning, PhD. I'll bet the guy just LOVES the first few installments each season of American Idol. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Predictions are hard by TemporalBeing (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:05PMRe:Predictions are hard by Neoprofin (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:41PMThe more I learn, the less I know by porkThreeWays (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:03PMRe:The more I learn, the less I know by jp10558 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:00PMRe:Predictions are hard by Armour Hotdog (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:57PMRe:Predictions are hard by Neoprofin (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:44PMRe:Predictions are hard by mudbogger (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @03:09PMRe:Predictions are hard by Lars T. (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:47PMWhy?? Licenses are not farfetched. by technoextreme (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:56AMWhoops forgot to hit preview by technoextreme (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:00AMIf Engineers built buildings by ColdWetDog (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:09AM Re:If Engineers built buildings (Score:5, Insightful) by legirons (809082) on Tuesday November 08, @04:53PM (#13982791) "If Engineers built buildings the way computer programmers wrote programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."If engineers built buildings the way computer programmers wrote programs, an average engineer would be able to build an array of radio telescopes by himself in one evening. A team of 30 engineers would be able to build a ringworld in 3 months.i.e. it would be nice if software were like designing an office, where there were 3 architects, 5 engineers, a building inspector, and 50 professional workmen to examine a system containing just a few hundred variables, and almost identical to the last 20 buildings they'd constructed.And in case that didn't start a flamewar, how about..."Just one unexpected input (of an aeroplane) caused the failure of two of New York's biggest civil engineering projects -- imagine how they'd cope with being attacked every 3 seconds like some internet software" [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Whoops forgot to hit preview (Score:4, Informative) by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday November 08, @11:16AM (#13979202) (http://www.kibbee.ca/) There are software engineers in Canada now. They can legally sign off on a software project. The problem is, is that you don't want to have every one of your programmers be licensed software engineers, all signing off on their own code. It would be too expensive to try and hire that many engineers, and managing all the signatures for all the code, when different people work on the same piece of code would be a nightmare to manage. Basically you'd have to have one engineer, or team thereof, overseeing the entire project to be sure that proper methods are being followed to ensure that there aren't any bugs. What you're asking for is more like saying that everyone who in building a bridge be licensed, and that they should all have to sign off on every rivet they put in.The problem is, is that most companies producing software do not want to pay for an engineer to oversee their project. Also, the way most software operations are run, you wouldn't see an engineer, signing off on the projects. The engineer would force things to be much more tested in order to be ensure that things were actually worthy to be signed off on. There is lots of this kind of software being built for planes, and other situations where it really matters if there is bugs. I don't think this kind of situation will ever happen with off the shelf software. For one thing, software would cost too much, and most people aren't willing to pay $2000 to run an operating system on their home computer, and also because most engineers wouldn't sign off on a system, in which they didn't know the computer their software would run under. There's too many variables on a home computer to be able to garauntee, at that level, that your software will operate completely as expected. [ Reply to This | ParentEnd of story. I don't care about home computers by technoextreme (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:32AM Re:Whoops forgot to hit preview (Score:4, Insightful) by RobinH (124750) on Tuesday November 08, @01:16PM (#13980408) (http://slashdot.org/) Look, I write software for control systems (and I design them electrically too). Just because programmers at Microsoft or EA Games have tight schedules where they are just too stressed to write code well doesn't mean all code needs to be written like that.Back to what you were saying, if you have a system that could cause damage or whatever, then you start by writing your output routines, and you create rules to govern the machine (i.e. outputs A and B can't come on at the same time, or output C can't exceed this value). Then you write another module that monitors the inputs AND outputs looking for fault conditions that shuts down the machine if you do anything dangerous. Only this part of the code needs to be signed off by an engineer. Typically it's simple code, and easy to prove correct, with peer review. Then you write other modules that essentially make requests through the safety checks to do anything. You don't have to review the complex other code so much, because your output stage should catch any mistakes.That's how you make a machine safe. Unfortunately, most engineers I know just go out and write the software figuring there's no difference, and that's how bad things happen. It comes from believing you won't make a mistake, or believing that testing will catch all problems. If you plan from the start that you're going to be making mistakes, you can catch them before damage is done. It's too bad this isn't taught, even in the software engineering classes I took at a Canadian university. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Whoops forgot to hit preview by CastrTroy (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @02:12PMRe:Whoops forgot to hit preview by RobinH (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @02:54PMRe:Whoops forgot to hit preview by CastrTroy (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:05PMRe:Whoops forgot to hit preview by RobinH (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:40PMBuilding safe systems by uncqual (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:30PMRe:Building safe systems by uncqual (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:23PMRe:Building safe systems by Hrvat (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:31PMRe:Building safe systems by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:33PMRe:Building safe systems by uncqual (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:49PMRe:Building safe systems by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @05:11PMRe:Building safe systems by uncqual (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @05:57PMRe:Building safe systems by Blue23 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:08PMRe:Building safe systems by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:21PMand yet another radiation machine problem by GunFodder (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @07:46PM Re:Whoops forgot to hit preview (Score:4, Informative) by Balthisar (649688) on Tuesday November 08, @11:19AM (#13979252) (http://www.balthisar.com/) You are not even allowed to call yourself an engineer without getting that license. That person is actually held legally responsible for the projects he signs off on.Actually, you're confusing the title "P.E." (professional engineer) with the generally accepted term "engineer." One (the P.E.) is a licensed engineer, and others are used traditionally and arbitrarily with no legal recourse. For example, I and my co-workers are bona fide engineers, and most of us have engineering or engineering technology degrees. None of what we do requires a P.E. to sign off on anything, although there are other aspects of our business (and many other businesses) that do require a P.E.Of course, there are all kinds of "engineers" that have that title but don't truly merit it -- customer service engineer; field service engineer; applications engineer; and so on. Most of these don't hold engineering degrees. For many of them, I don't begrudge them their title, either. But we also know that they're not P.E.'s. [ Reply to This | ParentAnd don't forget your roots... by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:40AM Re:And don't forget your roots... (Score:5, Interesting) by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 08, @12:11PM (#13979836) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 27, @11:49AM) Right, but back then you had to know how they worked to operate them. In fact I've never seen a modernized steam engine that ran itself. You couldn't even crest a hill too fast, or you'd have a flash in the boiler and blow the thing up, potentially killing people who weren't even in or near the engine at the time since there's a lot of energy involved in phase change and the boiler parts are all heavy. Thus steam engineers actually knew something, or they (and many people around them) were in a lot of trouble. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:And don't forget your roots... by mrisaacs (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:32PMRe:And don't forget your roots... by big tex (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:55PMRe:And don't forget your roots... by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:10PMRe:And don't forget your roots... by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:40PMRe:And don't forget your roots... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:43PMRe:And don't forget your roots... by AtomicRobotMonster (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Whoops forgot to hit preview by brunson (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Why?? Licenses are not farfetched. by Phisbut (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:38PMRe:Predictions are hard by cow-orker (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:19PMYes, it does happend by stm2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:41PMRe:Predictions are hard by Old Wolf (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @08:36PMRe:Predictions are hard by AvitarX (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:07AMRe:Predictions are hard by pete6677 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:08AMRe:Predictions are hard by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:37PMRe:Predictions are hard by pete6677 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:04PMRe:Predictions are hard by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:17PMRe:Predictions are hard by Mr. Gus (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:10AMRe:Predictions are hard by basingwerk (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:19AMRe:Predictions are hard by Kohath (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:32PMGuidelines for avoiding common mistakes by derek_farn (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:28AMRe:Predictions are hard by j-cloth (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @11:40AMRe:Predictions are hard by hipernoico (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:44AMRe:Are you sure the grass is greener? by symbolic (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:10PMRe:Predictions are hard by kryten_nl (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:49PMRe:Predictions are hard by Registered Coward v2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:27PMRe:Predictions are hard by sbenj (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:37PMRe:Predictions are hard by Marillion (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:56PMRe:Predictions are hard by Stealth Potato (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:02PMLicensing - ACM Position by Embedded Geek (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @02:16PMRe:Predictions are hard by (H)olyGeekboy (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @03:29PMRe:Predictions are hard by Trogre (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @08:56PMRe:My prediction by lidden (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:16PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Microsoft's striking absence by penguin_asylum (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:32AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by jzeejunk (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:34AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by IdleTime (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @10:39AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by Shaper_pmp (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @10:49AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by IdleTime (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:24AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by zootm (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:29PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by Greyfox (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:50PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by uncqual (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @01:52PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by IdleTime (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:11PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Microsoft's striking absence (Score:4, Informative) by mattyohe (517995) <mattyoheNO@SPAMgongoozler.com> on Tuesday November 08, @10:51AM (#13979002) Do people just open an article, do a Ctrl+F and type microsoft to find something 'juciy'? If you would have RTFA you would have seen that the 'Ping Of Death' was mentioned which did impact Windows machines. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Microsoft's striking absence by 21chrisp (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:13PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Microsoft's striking absence (Score:5, Informative) by varmittang (849469) on Tuesday November 08, @11:02AM (#13979091) (http://www.ducktapeandglue.com/) Remember when the LA air traffic control tower crashed, due to a bug in MS software after 49 days. I would think that this would make it up there. http://www.itgarage.com/node/459 [itgarage.com] [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Microsoft's striking absence by AviLazar (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:36PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by flyinwhitey (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:46PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by varmittang (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:44PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by Bender Unit 22 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:27PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Only if you're doing string comparisons... by CrazedWalrus (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:27AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by diegocgteleline.es (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:28AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by lisaparratt (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:47AMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by NanoGator (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:48PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by kruithof (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @08:04PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by borawjm (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:50PMRe:Microsoft's striking absence by gmuslera (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:16PMDid you read the article you linked to? by flyinwhitey (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:57PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.They are just very, VERY careful. by Poromenos1 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:34AMRe:They are just very, VERY careful. by Coryoth (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:01AM Re:They are just very, VERY careful. (Score:4, Interesting) by Coryoth (254751) on Tuesday November 08, @11:06AM (#13979120) (http://jedidiah.stuff.gen.nz/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 03, @01:42AM) When you are writing software for life-critical applications, there is various software and techniques that ensures bug-free code. Just look at all the airplanes, powerplants, car computers, etc. It's not very usual at all to see one fail critically.When you are writing software for life critical systems, there are methods you can follow that allow you much greater assurance of correct code and drastically reduce the testing burden (byt being abel to prove that certain classes of errors don't exist in the code). It's akin to static types, which allow you to statically catch a lot of type errors obviating reducing the need to spend time testing for possible type errors.The languages and methods used are things like SPARK [praxis-his.com] and B-method [b-core.com] The beauty of systems like SPARK is that they provide a degree of flexibility in how much work you go to depending on how much extra assurance you want. It is quite possible to simply specify critical portions of code with a little extra formality (basically extended static checks beyond what type checing alone can give you) through to fully specifying everything and doing formal proofs for the whole system. You can tailor the effort and assurance to the needs of the project.(This time without that dangling link - that'll teahc me not to preview)Jedidiah [ Reply to This | ParentRe:They are just very, VERY careful. by MarkGriz (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:28AMRe:They are just very, VERY careful. by karnal (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:43PMSoftware Engineering makes reliable code by ke4roh (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:46AMRe:They are just very, VERY careful. by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:46AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Oh?1 by Poromenos1 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:41PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. only 10? (Score:4, Insightful) by Lucan_UK (745708) <nick@oram.compass-group@co@uk> on Tuesday November 08, @10:34AM (#13978848) (Last Journal: Tuesday November 08, @11:36AM) I wouldnt say they are the 10 worst bugs ever... more like the 10 most widely known media announced bugs. Okay I have no examples of any others but I'm sure there must be worse bugs out there...anyone think of any others? [ Reply to ThisRe:only 10? by corngrower (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:39AMRe:only 10? by ptomblin (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:42AMRe:only 10? by Lars T. (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:07PMRe:only 10? by smithmc (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @07:17PM Re:only 10? (Score:5, Insightful) by plover (150551) * on Tuesday November 08, @10:41AM (#13978919) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday October 07, @10:50AM) I don't think they should count the "pipeline bug."That was a trojan. It was a deliberate attack on their system by an enemy. It didn't even arrive via the now classical "worm" or "virus" route, which would have implied that a "bug let it in the door." No, this one was deliberately planted carefully at the root. It's not a bug, it was an attack. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:only 10? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:59AMRe:only 10? by ScentCone (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:20AMGoose and gander by A nonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:43AMMy faith is restored by A nonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:00PMRe:Goose and gander by Kohath (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:07PMRe:Goose and gander by ScentCone (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:08PMRe:Goose and gander by Lars T. (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:33PMRe:Goose and gander by Goldarn (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:29PMRe:Goose and gander by Kohath (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:13PMRe:Goose and gander by OzPeter (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:57AMRe:Goose and gander by iceperson (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:07PMGough Whitlam by A nonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:10PMRe:Goose and gander by flyinwhitey (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:30PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Goose and gander by Hatta (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:29PMRe:Goose and gander by gowen (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:43PMRe:Goose and gander by corngrower (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:44PMRe:Goose and gander by Chosen Reject (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:44PMRe:Goose and gander by Lars T. (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:53PMRe:Goose and gander by Derling Whirvish (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @06:44PMRe:Goose and gander by Lars T. (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @07:05PM Re:Goose and gander (Score:4, Informative) by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Tuesday November 08, @12:47PM (#13980149) Chile [wikipedia.org]Colin Powell's statement: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of."Iran [wikipedia.org]Guatemala [wikipedia.org]Greece [wikipedia.org]There's lots more where those came from -- all democratically elected too. I hope you survive the cognitive dissonance. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Goose and gander by minus_273 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:23PMRe:Goose and gander by Jherek Carnelian (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:30PMRe:Goose and gander by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:52PMRe:Goose and gander by minus_273 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @06:55PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Goose and gander by Haelyn (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @01:08PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:only 10? by maxwell demon (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:58AMRe:only 10? by ScentCone (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:49PMRe:only 10? by glesga_kiss (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @01:17PMRe:only 10? by plover (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @02:46PMMOD PARENT DOWN by igny (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:38PM Re:only 10? (Score:5, Insightful) by mattOzan (165392) < vispuslo&mattozan,net> on Tuesday November 08, @01:32PM (#13980559)