4 ms·
Or maybe between one version and the next they only found one bug (there may have been bugs in the first version which weren't fixed until the third or later) -
by daemonologist 2y ago
Or maybe between one version and the next they only found one bug (there may have been bugs in the first version which weren't fixed until the third or later) - this seems more plausible to me since it's... rather difficult to count bugs until after you know about them.
Of course now the greatness of the feat depends on how much testing there was between versions, but given that it was the shuttle there was probably a lot.
- sqeaky 2y agoAnd then we find a new category of bug, consider how we ran millions of different programs for many billions of CPU hours on all of our x86 CPUs before we learned about Spectre and meltdown.
- swiftcoder 2y agoNot just testing - line-by-line code review of the entire system by a panel of experts. Outside of aerospace/defence/nuclear this style of review is not very common.
- Symbiote 2y agoI don't know about now, but software verification would also be used in consumer electronics. Fixing a bug in 10,000 washing machine control boards is very expensive when it entails sending a technician to every house to replace the circuit board.
- swiftcoder 2y agoYeah, I guess for devices that can't receive OTA updates that makes sense. Though I fear that segment of the market is rapidly shrinking - televisions have ubiquitous software update capabilities now, and even washing machines are increasingly internet connected. We didn't apply anywhere near that kind of quality control to smartphones or VR headsets. Once users are trained to install OTA updates to fix issues, most of the impetus for extreme quality control outside of the bootloader->OTA update path is gone