RE: Can a machine test itself? + other issues
Dick, et al. -
Throwing my two cents worth into this:
ES&S has used both entirely proprietary
configurations and ones with COTS.
Definitely, if there is a way to make COTS workable
(rules that allow for their use but make it acceptable constraints that
the COTS providers will meet those rules and yet provide the necessary
level of assurance), there should be a lower cost to deploying systems
with them. And, in use of the term "cost", I include more than just
raw money -- time and effort to build/test/maintain/etc.
It is possible by setting up the rules around COTS
(or Open Source for that matter) to either incent or disincent the
voting solution vendors in such use.
- Peter Z
Peter M Zelechoski, CISSP, MBA-TM
Election Systems & Software
pzelechoski@essvote.com
402-970-1242
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or
previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is
confidential and may constitute non-public information. It is intended
to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. Any
unauthorized use, reproduction, forwarding, distribution or other
dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail
transmission, please notify the sender by return e-mail and permanently
delete any record of this transmission. Your cooperation is
appreciated.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Johnson [mailto:dick.johnson@ORACLE.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:25 PM
To: Dick Johnson
Cc: Vincent J. Lipsio; COTS@LIPSIO.COM;
stds-1583-disc@IEEE.ORG;
stds-1583-TG1@IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Can a machine test itself? + other issues
Vince,
One more question--is any vendor truly prepared to
invest in an
embedded, totally custom COTS-free voting system and
then make all of
its investment public as Open Source? If so, I missed
that information.
-- Dick
Dick Johnson wrote:
> Gee, Vince,
>
> please re-read my comments. I have no doubt that
there are tons of
> embedded systems in existence, and that there is
an embedded system
> industry. I have not said that such is
impossible or that it does not
> exist. I may have phrased my argument poorly.
>
> I am only saying that my understanding (which may
be wrong) of the
> economics of voting systems is such that most
voting systems are based
> on either Windows or Linux and not custom
embedded systems for the
> reason that vendors have wished to save money.
Sure, it is possible,
> feasible, and desired by many to built COTS-free
software--but how much
> will it cost and who will pay for it?
>
> This is my personal and professional opinion, and
it does not
> necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer.
>
> Cheers!
>
> -- Dick
>
> Vincent J. Lipsio wrote:
>
>> Dick,
>> I have made my living for 28 years now
designing embedded systems.
>> Remarkably, you have just told Stan that my
line of work is "passed
>> the bounds of the practical". Please do a
Google search on "Embedded
>> Systems" and you will discover that there is
an entire thriving
>> industry that you seem entirely unaware of.
>>
>> Embedded systems typically employ a kernel
written in-house (as, for
>> example, ES&S's DREs do) or an RTOS (Real
Time Operating System), of
>> which there are more than a hundred on the
market. You may wish to
>> Google that term, too.
>>
>> There are hundreds of specialized processors
from all the major
>> manufacturers that are tailored to specific
niches of the embedded
>> market.
>>
>> Intel, realizing it was missing the embedded
market because it
>> end-of-lifes its desktop CPUs three years
after introduction, now
>> introduces a new x86 chip from time to time
that is guaranteed to
>> remain in production as long as there is a
demand for it. For this
>> reason, most embedded systems that use x86
CPUs use some variant of a
>> 486 or 386.
>>
>> Microsoft introduced CE in order to try to
get into the embedded
>> systems market. It has gained some
popularity among non-critical
>> applications. However, no critical device
uses a Microsoft OS and
>> few use Linux; by critical device I mean, for
example, a Class 3 or
>> class 2 FDA device or avionics systems
certified under RTCA/DO-178B.
>>
>> Your comments leave me no choice but to
conclude that you have no
>> knowledge of the entire arena of computer
engineering that Stan and
>> I, among others, have been discussing.
>>
>> Vince Lipsio
>>
>> ----------------- Commence Original
Message -----------------
>>
>> You raise some interesting theoretical
issues, but my sense of it is
>> that you have passed the bounds of the
practical. The economic basis of
>> computers was and is that they may run more
than one program. It does
>> not have to be this way; you could design and
build a dedicated,
>> one-purpose machine with hardware and
software all custom crafted.
>> Quite expensive, really, since all
development costs must be amortized
>> over one specialized application. The profit
potential is limited,
>> given the costs of development, so no private
party would want to do
>> this. Are you sure that the political
realities are such that the U.S.
>> Government in a time of deficit would choose
to spend money on elections
>> rather than tax cuts? I might agree with you
on the desired approach to
>> election equipment, but I am not very
influential regarding the federal
>> government's spending plans.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that in the real
world we have MS Windows and
>> Linux from which to choose, generic PC
firmware and hardware,
>> specialized and general purpose printers,
proprietary hardware, and
>> either open source or proprietary specialized
voting software. From
>> this mix, all US voting systems will
certainly emerge. We do have the
>> option of specifiying Open Test to supplement
the existing proprietary,
>> private, and inscrutible test organizations
currently providing
>> certification. Our standards must provide a
measure of how well an
>> individual voting system is likely to
function, given our understood
>> criteria.
>>
>> Otherwise, although interesting, speculation
about total custom voting
>> systems (Open Source and Open Hardware
Designs?) does not seem helpful
>> except in order to highlight what is needed
in the real world.
>>
>> This is my personal and professional opinion,
and it does not
>> necessarily reflect the opinions of my
employer.
>> Cheers!
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>> Richard C. Johnson, Ph.D.
>> Applications Architect
>> Oracle Corporation
>> 631-689-3736
>>
>>