Re: Proposed new WG


See below


From: Jonathan Moore <jandcmoore@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 10:59 AM
To: Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Cc: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>; development-process@...; devel@...
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG


Yep. In principal linux, the kernel only, could be a part of an element to the OS and then you could use things like the GNU/Linux distinction but I suspect the OS might be more than just GNU parts.


I will check when I get home if the word 'critical' appears in the latest edition.

>> Latest edition – of which document?


There was some resistance to this in years gone by.





On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 9:38 AM Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...> wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

On 30/09/2021 08:24, Jonathan Moore wrote:
> The OS will always be SEooC so never in 'full control' of safety.
> 'Safety related' would be more accurate than 'safety critical' and more
> in line with the common understanding of the phase.

As I understand it, this means that Linux could only ever be considered
a safety-related *element*, but surely it could still be part of a
safety-critical *system*?

However, I agree that 'safety-related' might be a better term to use in
general, as it applies to a broader range of use cases for Linux.



Join { to automatically receive all group messages.