Slashdot Mirror
Software Approvals For Consumer Markets?
Odkin asks: "Some friends and I are struggling with a hardware project which is stalled due to costly consumer market approvals (which is alright I guess). But it struck me, why are there only market approvals for hardware and not software? The hardware approvals include functionality tests that ensure that the product works as intended in any way the user would handle it (even unsuitable use). Would such approvals for commercial software improve the quality of the products, including minimizing the risk of data loss and heightening the security? In other words, would it facilitate or inhibit the creation of good software?"
Or is it both?
Some software goes through rigorous approval and acceptance testing. I'm looking at the software for the space shuttle. It's like civil engineering - due to the huge liabilities inherent in a failure scenario, an incredible amount of effort is put into ensuring that a failure scenario does not happen.
Some software gets cursory testing. I'm looking at my employer. It's like a burger - who cares if you get one pickle slice or two, as long as you get your burger?
And some software is like an analogy that makes no sense, like bridges and burgers. Mmmm, Chief Justice Warren Burger...
Posting anonymously. Hi, boss!
It would certainly help usability. If you extend the analogy of unsuitable use of hardware to software, what if I click the wrong button or enter an illegal command. This should all be handled by good software.
But if that process ever became standard, it might help quite a bit with security. Throw in some bogus data and see if anyone can read it or write to it illegally.
Ultimately, this will never happen unless users demand it, and refuse to buy a product unless it passes such a test. And I don't know if that will happen.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Could you clarify exactly what a 'consumer market approval' is? Is it done in house by the company making the product or by a third party institution? Are there generally accepted standards for the process or does each reviewing group have their own procedure?
Wouldn't that make it harder for open applications to get in industry? Who would pay for the validation?
here's what I meant to write
It would certainly help usability. If you extend the analogy of unsuitable use of hardware to software, what if I click the wrong button or enter an illegal command. This should all be handled by good software.
The problem is that software producers (we can all think of one we hate) are in a rush to make more product and to release new versions. And that rush goes against the idea of quality. In a sense, the software has to be just good enough to get a user's money.
But if that process ever became standard, it might help quite a bit with security. Throw in some bogus data and see if anyone can read it or write to it illegally.
Ultimately, this will never happen unless users demand it, and refuse to buy a product unless it passes such a test. And I don't know if that will happen.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Having been on both the hardware and software side of the business, the reason the hardware side goes through so many certifications and steps is purely financial. Building the board the first time is not just the same amount of logic but also checks for interference, electrocution, MTBF and usability. All this takes additional time and investment. If you produce a bunch and stuff goes wrong, fixing it is costly but you can also hurt people. Even liability insurance is more expensive because an inert CD just can't do much damage, but a loose wire can kill.
Every step of hardware is carefully vetted because mistakes (and even success) are so expensive. That, in my opinion, was the huge benefit of computers: they can adapt to your needs by loading cheap software.
Microsoft has a Windows Logo program whereby you pay them to see if your product meets the standards to use the "Designed for Microsoft Windows ####" logos. I bet they can sue you for trademark infringement if you say your product is "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" without getting their approval first.