4 ms·

You simply do not understand the point of extracting "basic car" from "smart car". The point isn't that the software will have no bugs. The point is that the

You simply do not understand the point of extracting "basic car" from "smart car". The point isn't that the software will have no bugs. The point is that the basic car will have much less software and much more basic software and that it is much easier to test and ensure this software is in working condition. Also, it is absolutely not true that the basic software has to be updateable. With care, basic functionality can absolutely be completely finished. Imagine you have been in the market with ABS controller for a decade or more. It has really simple functionality, it should be possible to just bake it and never touch it again. Or maybe a controller that takes care of basic battery protection. Or motor ESC. When the components are simple enough and well defined enough, it should be possible to "finish" the software to a state where it never again needs to be updated. Or updated only in exceptional circumstances.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
I have a very deep appreciation for simpler automotive components. Please don't take anything I'm saying as discounting those very real benefits. What I'm saying is that no practical amount of testing and verification can eliminate the need for updates. Let me give some practical examples I've seen: a bug in the silicon vendor BSP that prevented programs from accessing half of the physical memory. In another case the vendor provided optimistic battery curves that caused safety issues in certain conditions, so changes were needed after units were already in the field. In another case, a factory was taking the stuff we were giving them and using it to build weird Frankenstein images from various binary blobs, so nothing that had been produced for those weeks corresponded to anything that had been tested.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Cars have been built for decades without needing any updates at all. Microcontrollers were first put in cars in the 1970s, for fuel injection control, and later for ABS and SRS. No one ever got a software update for their ABS controller in the 1990s. They've been happily running non-updateable code for many decades now, and all of a sudden you think it's normal to update embedded software? No, it really isn't. If there was a real problem, there was a manufacturer recall and they replaced parts.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Yes, this fatalistic "all software inevitably has bugs" attitude is corrosive and self-reinforcing. How about we replace it with "the more complex the software, the faster it's built, the more likely it will have bugs". At least then, there's a solution. Simplify. Slow down. Test. Remove software. Don't use software when it's not required. The current free-for-all where we must put complex software into everything is killing us.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Those systems had bugs like anything else, they were just never addressed if the customer didn't bring their vehicle back to a dealership. Have you dealt with code from the 70s-90s before? The codebases I've worked with from that time period were rife with bugs and quality issues we wouldn't consider remotely acceptable today.
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      I am struggling to understand what it is you're trying to communicate. The original point is that it's quite clear that motor vehicles can physically operate without software, and so therefore smart automotive systems should use graceful degradation in order to avoid situations such as in the OP. Are you disagreeing that a motor vehicle can operate without software? Or are you disagreeing that a vehicle should continue to operate when smart features are unavailable?
      - AlotOfReading 3y ago
        My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates. There are valid arguments both ways whether they only happen at dealerships or also OTA or some third way, but they need to happen regardless. One example where software is practically required is the backup camera. Would you prefer a series of lenses and mirrors? None of that should be taken to imply that a vehicle should stop operating under any remotely normal circumstances. The situation pictured should not happen to customers.
hulitu 3y ago
> With care, basic functionality can absolutely be completely finished. Yes, but not in SW. "Even the perfect program still has bugs".

AlotOfReading 3y ago

I have a very deep appreciation for simpler automotive components. Please don't take anything I'm saying as discounting those very real benefits. What I'm saying is that no practical amount of testing and verification can eliminate the need for updates. Let me give some practical examples I've seen: a bug in the silicon vendor BSP that prevented programs from accessing half of the physical memory. In another case the vendor provided optimistic battery curves that caused safety issues in certain conditions, so changes were needed after units were already in the field. In another case, a factory was taking the stuff we were giving them and using it to build weird Frankenstein images from various binary blobs, so nothing that had been produced for those weeks corresponded to anything that had been tested.

shiroiuma 3y ago
Cars have been built for decades without needing any updates at all. Microcontrollers were first put in cars in the 1970s, for fuel injection control, and later for ABS and SRS. No one ever got a software update for their ABS controller in the 1990s. They've been happily running non-updateable code for many decades now, and all of a sudden you think it's normal to update embedded software? No, it really isn't. If there was a real problem, there was a manufacturer recall and they replaced parts.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Yes, this fatalistic "all software inevitably has bugs" attitude is corrosive and self-reinforcing. How about we replace it with "the more complex the software, the faster it's built, the more likely it will have bugs". At least then, there's a solution. Simplify. Slow down. Test. Remove software. Don't use software when it's not required. The current free-for-all where we must put complex software into everything is killing us.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Those systems had bugs like anything else, they were just never addressed if the customer didn't bring their vehicle back to a dealership. Have you dealt with code from the 70s-90s before? The codebases I've worked with from that time period were rife with bugs and quality issues we wouldn't consider remotely acceptable today.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    I am struggling to understand what it is you're trying to communicate. The original point is that it's quite clear that motor vehicles can physically operate without software, and so therefore smart automotive systems should use graceful degradation in order to avoid situations such as in the OP. Are you disagreeing that a motor vehicle can operate without software? Or are you disagreeing that a vehicle should continue to operate when smart features are unavailable?
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates. There are valid arguments both ways whether they only happen at dealerships or also OTA or some third way, but they need to happen regardless. One example where software is practically required is the backup camera. Would you prefer a series of lenses and mirrors? None of that should be taken to imply that a vehicle should stop operating under any remotely normal circumstances. The situation pictured should not happen to customers.

hulitu 3y ago

> With care, basic functionality can absolutely be completely finished. Yes, but not in SW. "Even the perfect program still has bugs".