Comment by ungreased0675
7 months ago
So many layers of failure here. It points to very suspect architecture and development practices, the bad update is just sprinkles on top.
7 months ago
So many layers of failure here. It points to very suspect architecture and development practices, the bad update is just sprinkles on top.
The cars needs a partition for the running OS, and a second as backup, and "reboot to recovery partition" to fall back to in case the update breaks.
Hah, curious to think that cars now have bootloaders...
Cars probably have multiple bootloaders even. Surely there are at least two, one for the ECU and one for the infotainment system. Perhaps there are even more depending on how complex components like parking cameras etc. are.
I suppose some version of CTRL-ALT-DELETE is needed to reset the car's OS.
The first layer of failure was the decision to make the car computer-controlled.
That came after the decisions to reduce both costs and tailpipe emissions - both obvious worthy goals. Is the implementation that is flawed, not the idea.
Computer controlled cars are obviously good. They have improved reliability, drivability and safety by enormous margins. Getting rid of them is like demanding back analog planes, because of the Boeing max crashes.
Why would cars be the only thing we wouldn't manage with computers?
To avoid power and engine failure on the highway after a bad software update.
Because they work fine without them.
1 reply →
We could, but we shouldn't, because most software is crap. When the user is stuck with whatever software they got as a consequence of buying the machine they actually wanted, there's no incentive for the software not to be crap.
1 reply →