6 ms·

Jesus. How do engineers get away with this sort of thing? Why is there such resistance among hardware companies to a philosophy along the lines of "let's develo

Jesus. How do engineers get away with this sort of thing? Why is there such resistance among hardware companies to a philosophy along the lines of "let's develop some simple, no-nonsense, standards-compliant firmware with a straightforward user interface"? Like every single router configuration page - godawful. There's a hardware platform I've been keen to implement for some time, and to some extent I keep putting it off when I think about how challenging security and a good UX would be. Apparently the bar is lower than I thought.

joezydeco 13y ago
Because the engineers get a directive to jump to a new platform (like Tizen) and they're handed a barely-working reference platform with a HelloWorld app on it. Then they're told "oh yeah, this has to be ready by the Christmas selling season, which means you need to lock down firmware by July 1st. And we're demoing it at a trade show in May." And it's already April. So the engineers comment out printf("Hello World\n"); and start writing a camera. And so on. If they remember to take the other crap out of the Makefile (including the demo pictures of Obama), that's probably because they ran out of space in NOR Flash. Otherwise it stays in. Is there time to run network hidey-hole testing on the WiFi stuff? They're probably happy the thing takes a picture without wiping the SD Card a this point. It's all bubble-gum and duct tape underneath it all. From your Toyota auto to your Samsung camera to the Smart TV on your wall to the KitchenAid LCD oven in your house.
- r00fus 13y ago
  What's with your comment about the Toyota auto? As I understand there's a hell of a lot more regulation, forcing automobile product time lines to be naturally longer.
  - mahyarm 13y ago
    Probably talking about the in car infotainment system.
  - pearjuice 13y ago
    He is taking a cheap stab at a budget car manufacturer. Probably owns a Tesla. Or two.
    - joezydeco 13y ago
      Actually I drive a Toyota. But it's a 1996 model. ;-)
  - joezydeco 13y ago
    "Toyota’s developers used MISRA-C and the OSEK operating system, both good choices for a safety-critical real-time system. But then they ignored, sidestepped, or circumvented many of the very safety features they are designed to enforce." "On a cyclomatic-complexity scale, a rating of 10 is considered workable code, with 15 being the upper limit for some exceptional cases. Toyota’s code had dozens upon dozens of functions that rated higher than 50. Tellingly, the throttle-angle sensor function scored more than 100, making it completely and utterly untestable." http://www.eejournal.com/archives/articles/20131127-toyota/ http://www.eejournal.com/archives/articles/20131127-toyota/ Michael Barr was the engineer that was able to sit down with the Toyota engine code during the "unintended acceleration" lawsuit and determine what NASA could not: that the code was a wreck: http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2013/10/an-update-on-toyota-and-unintended-acceleration/ http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2013/10/an-update-on-toyo... Like I said. Bubble gum and duct tape.
  - dbloom 13y ago
    The regulations only apply to the engine computer (which is probably not changed much in each model year). There is no strict quality or safety (or aesthetic, for that matter) regulation for the entertainment/climate control system user interfaces. (In case you've ever wondered: yes, these screens do often show information from the engine computer. For example, the 2nd generation Prius's center console screen shows live information about the hybrid system. But that information is pretty much always obtained from a read-only connection to the CAN bus.)
  - zenojevski 13y ago
    It's a bad example because "toyotism" is widely considered synonymous with valuing precision[1] and efficiency[2] in production with ever-increasing quality. It would be less notable, though, if not for the contributions that Toyota brought to the craft, which are basically the same that today's developers apply so pridefully in their work. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban
  - GFischer 13y ago
    Regulation doesn't make software better. I don't know about Toyota specifically, but I work for a regulated sector, and the end result is that we generate documented and ISO 9001:2000 - compliant duct tape and bubble gum :P .
    - joezydeco 13y ago
      Have you noticed that ISO9000:2000 is a lot more relaxed than ISO9000 was in the 1990s? You have to wonder if so many projects were failing that they eventually decided to move the goalposts closer.
      - GFischer 13y ago
        I never got to see the older ISO standard :) (I entered the workforce in 2002) so I'll take you at your word. It does seem to be not that hard to attain a certification.
    - ska 13y ago
      Nothing is a panacea. Regulation can encourage better engineering practices, and that can certainly make for better software. The existence of false positives doesn't mean the whole exercise is pointless.
      - GFischer 13y ago
        I agree that regulation might point you in the right direction, but if the company is not commited to quality, I think it's very hard (and unlikely) for regulation to make the company change its bad habits. What I've seen is regulation stifling change, freezing projects, and creating more bureaucracy. In the particular company I work for (financial sector), there has been an increase in regulation and auditing of security practices. They're still really bad, you've seen endless posts here decrying the awfulness of some banking security practices. The worst thing is, they've probably been audited and made to pass some kind of regulatory standard, and the very fact they had to go through all that makes it harder to change (even if they're awful) since managament isn't willing to authorize it, especially since it doesn't affect the bottom line. If more people have to resign (like the Target CEO), maybe things will change, but I suspect IT people will become scapegoats instead.
javajosh 13y ago
People don't care how the sausage is made.
- Falling3 13y ago
  It's not about how it's made. It's about the final product.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  That is until some expert comes and informs them that it is actually made 90% pork 10% rat.
  - dvhh 13y ago
    And soylent green is ... nevermind the taste is amazing
criley2 13y ago
Because the average user and the vast majority of users can't use your straightforward and easy UI without explicit instructions because they don't understand any of it. If they're not going to use it or understand it, why spend time on it? The model is moving to ISP-controlled network hardware anyway. All new Comcast modems are remotely manageable by Comcast and they enable features that customers have to call Comcast to disable, as Comcast has better access to the modem firmware than the end user.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  It's actually irrelevant who uses the interface - the end user or ISP employee acting on users demand. Such change of the party in charge neither adds any usability to user interface (just the side who has to struggles with it), nor it increases security and reliability.
  - criley2 13y ago
    I actually believe that you're using false equivalence to pretend that both paradigms are the same. I disagree that they are, and I believe that you've made a lot of assumptions to declare my point "irrelevant", the biggest of which being that the software is identical and the only difference is who accesses it. That's a falsehood, and I'm going to reject the rest of your point because I disagree with those assumptions.

joezydeco 13y ago

Because the engineers get a directive to jump to a new platform (like Tizen) and they're handed a barely-working reference platform with a HelloWorld app on it. Then they're told "oh yeah, this has to be ready by the Christmas selling season, which means you need to lock down firmware by July 1st. And we're demoing it at a trade show in May." And it's already April. So the engineers comment out printf("Hello World\n"); and start writing a camera. And so on. If they remember to take the other crap out of the Makefile (including the demo pictures of Obama), that's probably because they ran out of space in NOR Flash. Otherwise it stays in. Is there time to run network hidey-hole testing on the WiFi stuff? They're probably happy the thing takes a picture without wiping the SD Card a this point. It's all bubble-gum and duct tape underneath it all. From your Toyota auto to your Samsung camera to the Smart TV on your wall to the KitchenAid LCD oven in your house.

r00fus 13y ago
What's with your comment about the Toyota auto? As I understand there's a hell of a lot more regulation, forcing automobile product time lines to be naturally longer.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  Probably talking about the in car infotainment system.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  He is taking a cheap stab at a budget car manufacturer. Probably owns a Tesla. Or two.
  - joezydeco 13y ago
    Actually I drive a Toyota. But it's a 1996 model. ;-)
- joezydeco 13y ago
  "Toyota’s developers used MISRA-C and the OSEK operating system, both good choices for a safety-critical real-time system. But then they ignored, sidestepped, or circumvented many of the very safety features they are designed to enforce." "On a cyclomatic-complexity scale, a rating of 10 is considered workable code, with 15 being the upper limit for some exceptional cases. Toyota’s code had dozens upon dozens of functions that rated higher than 50. Tellingly, the throttle-angle sensor function scored more than 100, making it completely and utterly untestable." http://www.eejournal.com/archives/articles/20131127-toyota/ http://www.eejournal.com/archives/articles/20131127-toyota/ Michael Barr was the engineer that was able to sit down with the Toyota engine code during the "unintended acceleration" lawsuit and determine what NASA could not: that the code was a wreck: http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2013/10/an-update-on-toyota-and-unintended-acceleration/ http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2013/10/an-update-on-toyo... Like I said. Bubble gum and duct tape.
- dbloom 13y ago
  The regulations only apply to the engine computer (which is probably not changed much in each model year). There is no strict quality or safety (or aesthetic, for that matter) regulation for the entertainment/climate control system user interfaces. (In case you've ever wondered: yes, these screens do often show information from the engine computer. For example, the 2nd generation Prius's center console screen shows live information about the hybrid system. But that information is pretty much always obtained from a read-only connection to the CAN bus.)
- zenojevski 13y ago
  It's a bad example because "toyotism" is widely considered synonymous with valuing precision[1] and efficiency[2] in production with ever-increasing quality. It would be less notable, though, if not for the contributions that Toyota brought to the craft, which are basically the same that today's developers apply so pridefully in their work. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban
- GFischer 13y ago
  Regulation doesn't make software better. I don't know about Toyota specifically, but I work for a regulated sector, and the end result is that we generate documented and ISO 9001:2000 - compliant duct tape and bubble gum :P .
  - joezydeco 13y ago
    Have you noticed that ISO9000:2000 is a lot more relaxed than ISO9000 was in the 1990s? You have to wonder if so many projects were failing that they eventually decided to move the goalposts closer.
    - GFischer 13y ago
      I never got to see the older ISO standard :) (I entered the workforce in 2002) so I'll take you at your word. It does seem to be not that hard to attain a certification.
  - ska 13y ago
    Nothing is a panacea. Regulation can encourage better engineering practices, and that can certainly make for better software. The existence of false positives doesn't mean the whole exercise is pointless.
    - GFischer 13y ago
      I agree that regulation might point you in the right direction, but if the company is not commited to quality, I think it's very hard (and unlikely) for regulation to make the company change its bad habits. What I've seen is regulation stifling change, freezing projects, and creating more bureaucracy. In the particular company I work for (financial sector), there has been an increase in regulation and auditing of security practices. They're still really bad, you've seen endless posts here decrying the awfulness of some banking security practices. The worst thing is, they've probably been audited and made to pass some kind of regulatory standard, and the very fact they had to go through all that makes it harder to change (even if they're awful) since managament isn't willing to authorize it, especially since it doesn't affect the bottom line. If more people have to resign (like the Target CEO), maybe things will change, but I suspect IT people will become scapegoats instead.

javajosh 13y ago

People don't care how the sausage is made.

Falling3 13y ago
It's not about how it's made. It's about the final product.
pfortuny 13y ago
That is until some expert comes and informs them that it is actually made 90% pork 10% rat.
- dvhh 13y ago
  And soylent green is ... nevermind the taste is amazing

criley2 13y ago

Because the average user and the vast majority of users can't use your straightforward and easy UI without explicit instructions because they don't understand any of it. If they're not going to use it or understand it, why spend time on it? The model is moving to ISP-controlled network hardware anyway. All new Comcast modems are remotely manageable by Comcast and they enable features that customers have to call Comcast to disable, as Comcast has better access to the modem firmware than the end user.

drdaeman 13y ago
It's actually irrelevant who uses the interface - the end user or ISP employee acting on users demand. Such change of the party in charge neither adds any usability to user interface (just the side who has to struggles with it), nor it increases security and reliability.
- criley2 13y ago
  I actually believe that you're using false equivalence to pretend that both paradigms are the same. I disagree that they are, and I believe that you've made a lot of assumptions to declare my point "irrelevant", the biggest of which being that the software is identical and the only difference is who accesses it. That's a falsehood, and I'm going to reject the rest of your point because I disagree with those assumptions.