
'Rocket science' VS 'OS Development' - niyazpk
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/indian_os.html#c469367
======
harlee
There seems to be a disconnect between his argument for tighter engineering
standards as the single key for building better software and the stated fact
that software is not bound by the constraints of physical reality.

In designing and producing the physical components of a 747 (like a bolt to
use his example), there isn't the same level of potential abstraction as there
is for even a very basic software component.

The fact that he's talking specifically about the development of a secure OS
does strengthen his argument though. So in that sense I agree with him.

------
argv_empty
We insist that software should, for any input, either accept and work normally
(if the input is valid) or reject and fail gracefully and safely (if the input
is invalid). I'm not yet convinced that applying this standard to engineering
projects will find a much better success rate than applying it to software has
found.

