Re: [lro] bad stuff

From: David Scheidt (dmschei@attglobal.net)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 12:26:19 EST

  • Next message: Alden John: "Re: [lro] Anyone tried this?"

    On Feb 6, 2004, at 7:36 AM, Alan J. Richer wrote:

    >
    >
    > --- Robert MacCormick <Robert.MacCormick@olin.edu> wrote:
    >>
    >> I use a computer to set things diagnose problems and
    >> reset codes.....How
    >> soon will I pludding the silly thing into macafee or some
    >> other such
    >> thing for updates....
    >
    > Considering the average ECU doesn't have any real IO
    > routines for executable code, not for the present, I'd
    > think. If it's got no place to accept programming or a way
    > to execute code, then it's immune.
    >
    > Car computers are relatively stupid, simgle-purpose devices
    > that are nowhere near as flexible as a general purpose
    > computing device - and they should be kept that way. If you
    > must have this electrickery keep it to the KISS principle.

    Hate to break it to you, Al, but car computers are now almost always
    re-programable. That's a good thing, for at least two reasons. It
    makes the same ECU easier to use in multiple vehicles (which brings
    costs down). The other is for field updates. ECUs do more and more
    these days, which means they have more and more code to do it with. As
    we both know, that means bugs. Being able to fix them without
    replacing the whole thing is much easier and cheaper.

    David
    Sorry about the earlier null message. My car did it.

    _______________________________________________
    LRO mailing list
    LRO@land-rover.team.net
    http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 12:19:38 EST