This is a stunt by Green Hills Software, a maker of embedded operating systems and programming tools. You might be interested to know that they initiated a public relations campaign decrying the use of Linux as insecure:
If I'm not mistaken the Green Hills "Integrity" OS is used in HP's iLO which has some [1] interesting [2] flaws [3]. Maybe these are all HP's fault, maybe they are partly due to the way "Integrity" works but it would be highly surprising if "Integrity" is indeed blameless.
So, "Integrity, unfit for national security" and "Integrity is insecure" are probably just as "true" as the statements made by the above gentleman.
has a critical safety malfunction on average every 8 minutes;
has been on the market for at least 6 months;
has never been recalled.
Have they tried Ford's self driving system on the Mach-E, and see how it auto-disengages when a highway curved more than what the system can handle? Would that count as a critical safety malfunction?
I'd never use FSD in its current state, but FSD had plenty of recalls by way of version rollbacks.
None of these systems are "self driving", and Tesla is the only company I've seen falsely advertise their system as capable of such. Ford's BlueCruise, for example, requires the driver to watch the road, and seems to be pretty accurately advertised: https://www.consumerreports.org/driver-assistance-systems/fo...
If this meets their condition of being from a Fortune 500 company (?) then their non-responding website is eligible to win. I wonder what OS they use to host it.
These people's reading comprehension is atrocious.
Tesla's FSD does not exist yet. A beta product is not the same as a product. Yes one can pre-pay for the product and get some features now, but actual FSD is simply not here yet. By "actual FSD" I mean something that is non-beta and actually does full self driving, in case that needs to be spelled out. Boy.
maxharris|4 years ago
https://lwn.net/Articles/83242/
Here's an article by the very same Dan O’Dowd: "Linux: unfit for national security?" https://web.archive.org/web/20040912190752/http://www.ghs.co... https://web.archive.org/web/20040916074333/https://www.ghs.c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software
Ourgon|4 years ago
So, "Integrity, unfit for national security" and "Integrity is insecure" are probably just as "true" as the statements made by the above gentleman.
[1] https://airbus-seclab.github.io/ilo/RECONBRX2018-Slides-Subv...
[2] https://vulmon.com/searchpage?q=ilo--
[3] https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10/p...
guardiangod|4 years ago
has a critical safety malfunction on average every 8 minutes;
has been on the market for at least 6 months;
has never been recalled.
Have they tried Ford's self driving system on the Mach-E, and see how it auto-disengages when a highway curved more than what the system can handle? Would that count as a critical safety malfunction?
I'd never use FSD in its current state, but FSD had plenty of recalls by way of version rollbacks.
tyrfing|4 years ago
waffle_maniac|4 years ago
accountLost|4 years ago
https://dawnproject.com/full-self-driving-cars-software-at-i...
natch|4 years ago
natch|4 years ago
Tesla's FSD does not exist yet. A beta product is not the same as a product. Yes one can pre-pay for the product and get some features now, but actual FSD is simply not here yet. By "actual FSD" I mean something that is non-beta and actually does full self driving, in case that needs to be spelled out. Boy.
CharlesW|4 years ago
Someone should tell Telsa!
"The complimentary FSD computer upgrade for owners with Full Self-Driving capability is now available."
https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer
TigeriusKirk|4 years ago
They can make things much more clear and take the marketing hit, but they choose not to do so.
adolph|4 years ago
bushbaba|4 years ago
riskneutral|4 years ago
osrec|4 years ago