Slashdot Mirror
FAA Grants RSC Status to Linux-Friendly RTOS
BoulderDad writes "LinuxDevices.com is reporting that a proprietary RTOS capable of running Linux binaries has been certified by the FAA as a re-usable software component (RSC). LynuxWorks says LynxOS-178's RSC acceptance will enable greater software reuse among integrators and developers of safety-critical aerospace and defense components."
That's a lot of acronyms!
Of course you don't trust it. That's why you review the code and make sure it looks okay.
Even that can be a whole lot cheaper than writing it yourself.
/dev/altimiter not found /dev/wing/left - printer on fire?
GE-xxxx: scsi2: AEN: WARNING: SMART threshold exceeded: Engine #3
Kernel panic: defect on
* FAA.
* RTOS
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
I think he must be referring to the applications, not the OS itsef. LynxOS is not Linux. It's proprietary real-time OS that can run Linux applications. The LynxOS itself is backed by the vendor, and it's pretty good from what I hear. However, the applications built on it depend on the skill of the application developers, not the OS vendor.
end of line
Actaully, certification is all you really have. To obtain OS-178B is very difficult.
Microsoft was approached by my company to get OS-178B. Once they looked at what it would entail, they called back a week later and told us that they had a good laugh. In their own words, not even Vista will come close. And XP was not even a consideration.
Be sure to read the article. This is LynxOS with Linux API on top. That is much easier to do.
But if you check google, you will find that there are several other companies with OS-178B version of Linux. They are a pain to work with as they are nothing but a stripped down redhat with a few re-written parts. Do you think that before I write code for any of these, that I am going to check over all the code? Not one line. I trust that the FAA and the company that sell these did that already. Why do I do that? Because, I do not have the time to do that and write my code.
That is why we use certificated OSs in critical areas of the cockpit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
- Class A; a laptop that you carry with aviation equipment or a GPS.
- Class B; an instrument that is IN the dashboard. But all it gets is POWER. It is not allowed to interact with anything else.
- Class C; In the dash and ability to read the data from the aircraft bus; that is it can display the status of the aircraft.
- Class D/E; in the dash, and not only reads, but writes data on the bus; that is it can be used for control.
If anybody else has the real scoop, go for broke on it.I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And a little research turns up per-developer pricing, although not the per-unit run-time license cost. That's not actually unreasonable, given the cost of DO-178B Level A documentation, but still. Ouch.
Note that, because it's a Linux API, the bulk of the development can be done on Linux platforms WITHOUT per-developer licenses.
You'd need occasional testing against the real OS by someone "sitting in a licensed seat" - to check the behavior under the real OS's scheduling regime and detect reliance on missing or divergent features. And of course you'd have to hammer on it ifn licensed seats (and real or excelently hardware modeled aircraft devices) for final test. But if the licenses are sufficiently dear you concevably might end up ahead. (You wouldn't need per-seat licenses for initial prototyping work, either.)
(The "reliability tested in later" nature of such an effort wouldn't be an extra burden if machines connected to prototype hardware or timing-accurate models of them also aren't available at all seats all the time.)
A lot of software might not need close modeling thoughout development to get right.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way