Re: [SystemSafety] Software reliability (or whatever you would prefer to call it)

From: C. Michael Holloway < >
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:05:50 -0400


I believe that if one looks at the history of reliability theory, one would discover that I'm not the one doing the redefining. But I may be wrong.

(standard disclaimer)

On 3/10/15 8:16 AM, Martyn Thomas wrote:
> My train service is unreliable - not because it degrades physically
> (though it does) but because the drivers don't show up when needed ...
> (Maybe they have degraded physically too, but I blame late nights
> watching football).
>
> Let's not try to redefine "reliability". Let's characterise the
> properties that we are discussing and choose some names that we agree to
> use for them (without overloading terms that have other, accepted meanings).
>
> Martyn
>
> On 10/03/2015 10:34, C. Michael Holloway wrote:
>> I can't speak for Nick, but I object to the use of the term
>> "reliability" being applied to anything other than failures (using the
>> term loosely) resulting from physical degradation over time.
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx >



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Mar 10 2015 - 14:06:03 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Apr 23 2019 - 02:17:07 CEST