On software testing

The software is checked very carefully in a bottom-up fashion. First, each new line of code is checked, then sections of code or modules with special functions are verified. The scope is increased step by step until the new changes are incorporated into a complete system and checked. This complete output is considered the final product, newly released. But completely independently there is an independent verification group, that takes an adversary attitude to the software development group, and tests and verifies the software as if it were a customer of the delivered product. There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc. A discovery of an error during verification testing is considered very serious, and its origin studied very carefully to avoid such mistakes in the future. Such unexpected errors have been found only about six times in all the programming and program changing (for new or altered payloads) that has been done. The principle that is followed is that all the verification is not an aspect of program safety, it is merely a test of that safety, in a non-catastrophic verification. Flight safety is to be judged solely on how well the programs do in the verification tests. A failure here generates considerable concern.

The above was written by R. P. Feynman, in Feynman’s Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, 1986. More than 20 years ago. Much recommended reading.

Found via Richard Feynman, the Challenger Disaster, and Software Engineering.

It’s not the move, it’s the “after” life

There is a lot of noise going about these news:

The Foreign Ministry is migrating all of its 11.000 desktops to GNU/Linux and other Open source applications.

That’s good.  Both the noise and the news.  But it’s not the first time that we hear about this or that government office moving to Linux desktops.  It happened before.  What I am more interested in hearing is the “after” life.  Something along the lines of “Look, we moved to Linux desktops one year ago and we are doing better than ever.  We are happier and we also spend less money”.  How many of those moved roll back to what they had before?  Why did they roll back? How many stay?  How many of those who stay are more satisfied?  How much cheaper it is for them?

That’s what I’d like to hear.

Passwords are like women

I don’t know if this was posted by someone else somewhere else before (probably it was), but that’s what I came up with yesterday, while explaining our password policy to one of the (male) colleagues.

Passwords are like women:

  • you should have as many of them as you can
  • you should change them as often as you can
  • you should never share them with another man

Judging by reaction, I got the point across.

Death Race

Just came back from watching “Death Race” in the movies.  Back when I saw the trailer for this film, I thought to myself that it looks like a very safe recipe. I mean, you have Jason Statham as a driver, lots of cards, some hot girls, plenty of chases and shooting.  What are the chances of it going bad?  Practically none. But what are the chances of it turning into something interesting and original?

It turned out that whatever were the chances, they weren’t enough.  On one hand, we indeed have Jason Statham and lots of cars, shooting, and explosions.  The special effects were done nicely, and there was not much screen time without something brutal happening.  On the other hand, there is nothing new.  In fact, the story and the circumstances were simplified a lot, and in such a way that there is no need to explain anything or to connect the story pieces together with long talks or travels.  The plot is simple and uncovers itself in all obviousity (did I just come up with a new word?) at approximately the fifth minute of the movie.

Was it bad?  No, it wasn’t.  It was worth every penny, and was well worth the time I spent.  Chases were nice, characters were not bad, and I liked most of the effects.  The whole thing is pretty dynamic and enjoyable.  It was also made for the big screen.  But seeing it once is enough and I doubt that I’ll buy or rent it on DVD.  At least, any time soon.

An overall rating of 6 out of 10 is, I think, appropriate.

Righteous Kill

Either one of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino is enough to attract attention to the movie.  When they are both in the same movie – that’s something that needs to be seen, no matter what the critics or ratings say.  And that’s why I went to watch “Righteous Kill” today.

Altogether, the film was rather average – not much dynamics and action for a police movie, predictable story with a lot of cliches, dialogs really off sometimes, and so, and so forth.  But.  There was enough good acting, and there was enough thought provoking.  I mean it’s not a philosophical movie by any measure, but it covers a few morals and gives enough time to the audience to poke around the good, the evil, and the fine line between the two.

Overall, maybe not worthy the big screen, but good enough for a DVD rent.  6.5 out of 10.