3 ms·

> the JSF project has been reported to have lots of software defects I haven't read anything that differentiates between these two possible scenarios: 1) Poor

> the JSF project has been reported to have lots of software defects I haven't read anything that differentiates between these two possible scenarios: 1) Poor engineering, execution, etc. 2) The bugs expected in this software project. When I think of it this way, I'm amazed it ever was completed (but maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way): * Meet the specifications of not only three U.S. military services but also militaries and other entities in multiple national governments (with all the politics, compromise and complexity that involves). * Invent and implement technologies to provide capabilities so bleeding edge that few people will imagine some of them for years, if not decades. There are no prior designs; nothing like it has ever been done. Part of the point is to exceed competitors' engineering capabilities by as much as possible. * Integrate these technologies into a massive system of systems, arguably the most complex system in the history of humankind. * The system is human-rated. * Performance is the highest priority; there is no making easy compromises of performance for safety: Human lives, the outcomes of battles, the fates of nations, and the course of history may depend on performance. * Accomplish this in secret, greatly restricting your access to outside resources. Will this work? You can't publish a paper and get feedback, or make a presentation at a conference. * Accomplish this in coordination with thousands of suppliers in many countries. * Because it's hardware and very expensive, your ability to iterate is limited. My completely amateur guess based on the above is that it's a massive, decades-long waterfall-style project.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Integrate these technologies into a massive system of systems, arguably the most complex system in the history of humankind." You went a bit overboard there. There's plenty of systems probably more complex that work fine on a daily basis. They were usually designed centrally, though.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Maybe, but plenty? What are you thinking of? Also, can you distinguish between those two scenarios (which was my main point)?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Huge systems with crazy amounts of code are what power most large companies. The budgets are usually way smaller than for defense contracts such as we're discussing where the profits of the contractors are assured through corruption. The former have to get more done with less. There's thousands of those teams, too, in just the Global 2000. Maybe Fortune 500, too. Far as amazing examples, I'd go for the centralized, five-9's systems like NonStop or the decentralized ones such as OpenBSD before the failure we're discussing.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > OpenBSD I think there is a miscommunication. OpenBSD is as complex as the F-35? I think the OpenBSD team would be very disappointed if that were true! OTOH, it would make the ~10 minutes it took to install it on the laptop to my right very impressive. EDIT: What I meant to ask in the GP was, do you see a way to distinguish between whether the F-35 is poorly executed, or whether we're seeing/saw the normal bugs for a project as described above (even admitting hyperbole about complexity, which I'm not sure of, it's still quite a project). > where the profits of the contractors are assured through corruption Not a major point, but these issues are too important to let pass these days, IMHO: How much of whose profits are assured through what corruption? I'm sure some of that goes on, as in all large institutions (including the large companies mentioned above), but I'm not ready to assign corruption to all or most defense industry profits with a broad brush. Also, I rarely hear much attention given to reducing it. For example, the GOP in Congress was working to take procurement authority out of a central DoD office, where it was put to prevent corruption and to put real procurement experts in charge, and into the hands of generals and admirals, people without procurement expertise (commanding fleets and fighting wars is a much different skill set) and with a bad track record regarding corruption in recent history (look up the Fat Leonard scandal, as one example off the top of my head). What I struggle to remember at this moment is whether that change passed; it was a pet project of McCain's.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Integrate these technologies into a massive system of systems, arguably the most complex system in the history of humankind." You went a bit overboard there. There's plenty of systems probably more complex that work fine on a daily basis. They were usually designed centrally, though.

hackuser 10y ago
Maybe, but plenty? What are you thinking of? Also, can you distinguish between those two scenarios (which was my main point)?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Huge systems with crazy amounts of code are what power most large companies. The budgets are usually way smaller than for defense contracts such as we're discussing where the profits of the contractors are assured through corruption. The former have to get more done with less. There's thousands of those teams, too, in just the Global 2000. Maybe Fortune 500, too. Far as amazing examples, I'd go for the centralized, five-9's systems like NonStop or the decentralized ones such as OpenBSD before the failure we're discussing.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > OpenBSD I think there is a miscommunication. OpenBSD is as complex as the F-35? I think the OpenBSD team would be very disappointed if that were true! OTOH, it would make the ~10 minutes it took to install it on the laptop to my right very impressive. EDIT: What I meant to ask in the GP was, do you see a way to distinguish between whether the F-35 is poorly executed, or whether we're seeing/saw the normal bugs for a project as described above (even admitting hyperbole about complexity, which I'm not sure of, it's still quite a project). > where the profits of the contractors are assured through corruption Not a major point, but these issues are too important to let pass these days, IMHO: How much of whose profits are assured through what corruption? I'm sure some of that goes on, as in all large institutions (including the large companies mentioned above), but I'm not ready to assign corruption to all or most defense industry profits with a broad brush. Also, I rarely hear much attention given to reducing it. For example, the GOP in Congress was working to take procurement authority out of a central DoD office, where it was put to prevent corruption and to put real procurement experts in charge, and into the hands of generals and admirals, people without procurement expertise (commanding fleets and fighting wars is a much different skill set) and with a bad track record regarding corruption in recent history (look up the Fat Leonard scandal, as one example off the top of my head). What I struggle to remember at this moment is whether that change passed; it was a pet project of McCain's.