The Natural Philosopher  writes:
> On 15/09/2020 11:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/09/2020 11:15, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher  writes:
>>>> On 14/09/2020 14:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> In a safety- and/or security-critical context,
>>>>> you can’t just ignore them, you need to find them (preferrably before
>>>>> someone else does), then recertify and redeploy the fixed software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certification is a moving target, at least in my industry, I don’t know
>>>>> about automotive. Same issues as above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Security is a moving target; attacks keep getting better. Same issues
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that’s before getting into changing customer needs, competitive
>>>>> challenges, rebranding, ...
>>>>
>>>> In a car window winder?
>>>
>>> Bit more electronics in a car than just a window winder. At any rate
>>> I’ll be trusting druck’s understanding of the costs and lifecycle or
>>> automotive software over yours.
>>
>> How much embedded programming have either of you done? I spent 5
>> years at it.

Well, I’ve been contributing continuously to our product’s firmware for
about half of the last decade, and intermittently since 2003 or so.

> Look. My position is, and always has been, that *once the software has
> been written*, the cost of deploying it is almost zero.
>
> Neither you nor Druck have come up with more than in his case, proof
> by assertion, and in your case, appeal to (his) authority, as to why
> this is a false statement.

I think I’ve covered it in previous posts. Our product is subject to
various standards-compliance and security requirements and these evolve
continuously. Even just to stay still in the marketplace we have to
respond with new firmware versions from time to time. This isn’t an
unusual situation for anything with safety or security aspects and I’m
not sure what’s so hard to believe about it.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05