5 ms·

While I agree with your statement that open sourcing code can help with improving it's quality, how exactly do you envision (paraphrasing) "hackers contributing

While I agree with your statement that open sourcing code can help with improving it's quality, how exactly do you envision (paraphrasing) "hackers contributing pull requests" to code that controls engines on an airplane? Here you have an extremely specialized codebase which can perhaps be understood by a tiny group of professionals and it can actually be tested by an absolutely vanishingly small group of individuals under special circumstances. I don't think "hackers" could even begin to make useful critique of this kind of software, let alone contribute pull requests to it.

madez 11y ago
You sound exactly like my current boss, who says that Linux is just a hobby project that you can put no trust in. I mean, who would fix problems if it's just a hobby? And if it's open, it must be a hobby. Surely, that can't possibly work!
- sleeping_pills 11y ago
  Did you actually read my post? If yes, can you seriously not see the difference between writing/testing an OS and writing/testing the software that controls jet engines? Open sourcing something like Linux works very well _precisely_ because it has a very large audience and is (relatively) approachable by hobbyists too. On the other hand, aerospace engineering and software is narrowly specialized with a (relatively) small group of experts and code used in commercial/military aircraft is anything but approachable to hobbyists. Then there is the fact that unit testing this kind of code requires engineering knowledge of the specific hardware involved (e.g. not just any jet engine, but one very specific model). Finally, let us not even mention the huge pink elephant in the room, namely that the absolute and vast majority of "hackers" does not have access to jet engines used in commercial (or military) airplanes and even fewer have the ability to conduct test flights.
nraynaud 11y ago
I agree with your conclusion, but not exactly for the same reason. Those projects are huge, there is never really small group of people working on something, it's often spread upon contractors over sub-contractors, with people leaving and coming, over many years, so in the end the information is quite spread. Plus there is a lot of documentation (which might also be a downside, because there is a hunt for relevant information). But what I would fear is that people would feel good about it being open source, and never go to have an actual look at it. Or go for a little bit in the beginning and then never again.

madez 11y ago

You sound exactly like my current boss, who says that Linux is just a hobby project that you can put no trust in. I mean, who would fix problems if it's just a hobby? And if it's open, it must be a hobby. Surely, that can't possibly work!

sleeping_pills 11y ago
Did you actually read my post? If yes, can you seriously not see the difference between writing/testing an OS and writing/testing the software that controls jet engines? Open sourcing something like Linux works very well _precisely_ because it has a very large audience and is (relatively) approachable by hobbyists too. On the other hand, aerospace engineering and software is narrowly specialized with a (relatively) small group of experts and code used in commercial/military aircraft is anything but approachable to hobbyists. Then there is the fact that unit testing this kind of code requires engineering knowledge of the specific hardware involved (e.g. not just any jet engine, but one very specific model). Finally, let us not even mention the huge pink elephant in the room, namely that the absolute and vast majority of "hackers" does not have access to jet engines used in commercial (or military) airplanes and even fewer have the ability to conduct test flights.

nraynaud 11y ago

I agree with your conclusion, but not exactly for the same reason. Those projects are huge, there is never really small group of people working on something, it's often spread upon contractors over sub-contractors, with people leaving and coming, over many years, so in the end the information is quite spread. Plus there is a lot of documentation (which might also be a downside, because there is a hunt for relevant information). But what I would fear is that people would feel good about it being open source, and never go to have an actual look at it. Or go for a little bit in the beginning and then never again.