Dear abhi,
Interoperability is part of the system specs.
Apologies, I don't know so much as you do.
I was in the armed forces, did some R&D and development work for some years on weapon
systems software ( including embedded and real time and hardware design) etc, but
completely missed the points mentioned by you.
Regards.
Atul Asthana
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2004-03-25 16:33:56
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
--Mahatma Gandhi
======= At 2004-03-19, 11:04:00 abhi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =======
>From: "Arjun Asthana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> What you are talking about is software tech standards, which would be
>limited to systems which are capable of operating these
>technologies/protocols. This way, you would end up leaving out a very large
>chunk of software which runs on very small embeded systems, who may them
>selves be autonomous in their operations.
>>
>> Very large number of mil softwares do not run on processors which can
>handle these tech standards. They are designed for single small job.
>>
>> I was talking about quality standards by which, the design, testing,
>integration and everything else takes place. The software may or may not
>follow the tech standards mentioned by you. Your definition will disqualify
>almost entire mil aviation software which uses its own protocols and tech
>standards.
>
>You are simply quoting the broad principle on which these specifications are
>based. (" Mil grade means the software does exactly and only what it is
>suppose to do"). And it doesn't takes care of interoperability/compatability
>btw.
>
>Let me simplify it for you. Let us say the military buys OS A which does
>"exactly and only what it is supposed to do". And it also buys product B
>which also does "exactly and only what it is supposed to do". But product B
>despite qualifying your broad principle, doesn't runs on OS A. Usually apart
>from real time OS/applications concerns, the second factor of major concern
>is "will it work with what we already have in place?".
>
>Your deifinition of "Mil grade means the software does exactly and only
>what it is supposed to do" hardly takes compatability into account, does it
>?.
>
>>Your definition will disqualify almost entire mil aviation software which
>uses its own protocols and tech standards.
>Pardon ? how so ? I merely said that US has such and such standard and
>*most* of the other countries borrow from what US has so far done(and others
>obviously either make their own specifications on the fly). If mil aviation
>software has its own standards, then mil grade software would be one which
>complied to such protocols and tech standards, correct ?
>
>I was merely saying that your definition of "Mil grade means the software
>does exactly and only what it is supposed to do" was incomplete since it
>didn't take interoperability into account for example.
>
>As for Vivek's second query about whether linux qualifies, it completely
>depends on which military. Several governments have officially adopted linux
>and would probably have no qualms adopting it for military usage as it is
>posix compliant to a large degree. Some of others make their specifications
>on the fly. US DoD required certification. Last I checked Linux was posix
>compliant to quite a degree but not certified.
>
>- Abhi
>
>Regards,
>Abhi
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
>Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
>http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
