2 ms·

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

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.