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?"
make a better product. However it would make it real hard for small software houses to put out software. Plus isnt the EULA's whole point to get around accountability in a product?
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
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!
Dear Sir,
Because no one trusts a hardware engineer.
Sincerely,
A Software Engineer
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?
The FCC/CE wants to make sure that your widget doesn't interfere with the other widgets. UL/CSA wants to make sure your widget doesn't burn the house down.
I know that CE has some EMI susceptablilty stuff that isn't exactly safety, but for the most part, the issue is making a safe, non-interfering widget. The widget could fail in 2 days, as long as it fails safely.
You are posing a question that is pretty much unrelated to hardware approvals.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
the only way to ensure the creation of better software is to destroy capitalism, thus taking away the profit motive for the speedy creation of software. once there is no money in it, only smart, skilled, and creative people like Dennis Richie or RMS will actually bother to make software. Only the creation of a Socialist Republic a la Seamus Costello and Malachy McAllister, James Connolly, or Karl Marx will create better software, true freedom, and a peaceful world.
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.