Software Approvals For Consumer Markets? 227
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?"
Probably would (Score:4, Interesting)
Four words (Score:3, Funny)
Same thing could be applied to software.
Re:Four words (Score:2)
5 Words:
Designed for Microsoft Windows XP
Re:Four words (Score:3, Informative)
The only software I've ever seen with that label has been from Microsoft. There's plenty of hardware with that label, but when it comes to software, Microsoft doesn't share. Besides that, there are no real standards to live up to. The Nintendo Seal of Quality wasn't just "It uses the newest APIs". It was a actual scoring of a product done by human beings. If the product failed to meet Nintendo's standards (for whatever reasons, some perhaps made up on the spot to handle th
Re:Four words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Four words (Score:3, Informative)
You don't see Microsoft preventing the shipment of shlock software, but you also don't see the shlock shipping with their holy Logo on the box. They can sue you for that, and don't think they wouldn't.
(Alas, universal acceptance of the Logo Requir
Re:Probably would (Score:2, Interesting)
If there were a reliable (testing) house that could offer it at relatively low cost then maybe we could incorporate most types of developement. *shrug*
Re:Probably would (Score:2)
Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/pearls/sec073.ht ml [bell-labs.com]
I think every software developer should read that... perhaps annually. :-)
Re:Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:4, Interesting)
ever read the warranty that comes with yr lawnmower? about how it's only valid if the mower is used "reasonably and correctly"? if you run over rocks or now nine foot wet grass, the warranty won't cover damage. most software is like that.
testing is done for "reasonable" use and the software shop regards "unreasonable" use as being either a) uncovered or b) a violation of the eula.
And 90% of the time it's just snake oil (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not regard stuff like a game crashing every half an hour as being caused by "unreasonable" use. Or for example: which of Fallout 2's many script bugs were "unreasonable" use?
I also do not regard stuff like "oops, the user used the back button in the browser" or "oops, the user opened a link in another window" on web sites to be "unreasonable" use. Use of bog-standard browser features, that have been around for
Re:Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:2)
Way to make a stand on the subject! I guess your OK with any old burger.
Re:Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:2)
Typically the restaurant cares, if you work in a big chain.
My first summer job was working at *unnamed major chain*. They have rigorous accounting procedures to keep track of every last slice.
Every burger got three slices, no more, no less. If, at the end of the day, ( slices_in_discard_bin + 3 * burgers_w_pickles_sold ) < initial_pickle_slice_supply, somebody would eventually get in trouble (theore
Re:Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:2)
Condiments are one thing, but if that burger isn't cooked right, I certainly care!
Re:Is software a bridge or a burger? (Score:2)
Uhhuh. And it still ships with a 4cm-thick wad of "waivers".
Good point, though. What's good enough for a garden tractor is not necessarily good enough for a race car, but that doesn't mean that garden tractors should be designed to race-car standards. "I can get it for w
usability testing? (Score:3, Funny)
but in reality this is somethign that every product (hardware or software) should go through. It'll just make a better product.
Re:usability testing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Last week I wrote an app for one of my users in about two hours. Obviously, that did not give me time to add exception handling, or really test it, other than the usual "yes, it gives her data, and it looks right."
She needed it in that amount of time, and I had no choice, other than to say no. So I handed it over with a disclaimer regarding it's stability. This week I'll find time to tune that app up, but who knows if she's handed it off to coworkers, etc.... and in that case, another b
EULAs and No Programmer Liability (Score:3, Informative)
Also teh EULA especially in UCITA states shields the software company from damages. Go read just about any EULA when it talks about damages if you don't believe me.
Re:EULAs and No Programmer Liability (Score:2)
Re:EULAs and No Programmer Liability (Score:2)
Well, software engineers can now be licensed in Texas. It has nothing to do with teaching thyself, rather, it has to do with how the profession wishes the public to view itself. Engineering standards and licensure are promoted by engineers, not legislatures. They promote it because they want 'Engineer' to be synonymous with reliability, safety, and trust.
If programmers/coders/software engineers wish to have the same public view, then they need to self regulate as well, and apply press
Yes, it would help (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Crap, I didn't close my tag (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
OK - I'll bite - what hoops are in your way? (Score:3, Informative)
If you are trying to get liability insurance, that's another thing - you can spend as much money as you have and it may not help.
So... give us a fer instance on what you're trying to do - your box looks pretty innocuous.
Re:OK - I'll bite - what hoops are in your way? (Score:2)
Repeat after me, power != volts. You can have a 1 volt source putting out 100 watts of power (1 volt * 100 amps = 100 watts) while you can have a 100 volt source put out 1 watt of power (100 volts * 10 milliamps = 1 watt). Saying simply anything less that 48 volts is ok is insane as I can't think of anything whatsoever that takes a wallwart for > 48v so next to nothing that uses a wallwart would need to be certified.
Re:OK - I'll bite - what hoops are in your way? (Score:2)
Of course, there are other risks like fire hazards that cant be removed simply by having a low voltage in the device.
An Open Letter (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Sir,
Because no one trusts a hardware engineer.
Sincerely,
A Software Engineer
Re:An Open Letter (Score:3, Funny)
You're not really an engineer.
Sincerely,
A Hardware Engineer
Re:An Open Letter (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Softwhere Enjineer,
If it's not on fire, it's a Software problem. :P
Sincerely,
A. Hardware Engineer.
Re:An Open Letter (Score:2)
I really like the joke, though....
Re:An Open Letter (Score:2)
Dear Software/Hardware Engineers,
Stop reading Slashdot and get back to work or you're both fired.
Sincerely,
UR Manager.
Re:An Open Letter (Score:2)
I trust my hardware a lot more than I do software. (Not my software, of course)
Sincerely,
A Software Guy
Re:An Open Letter (Score:2)
I strongly object to the letters
on your thread. They
are clearly not written by a
Software Engineer and are merely
included for a cheap laugh.
yours etc.
William Knickers
What is a consumer market approval? (Score:4, Insightful)
Government Regulation.... uuuuughh.... (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been suggested before, and is a *very bad idea*. It is tolerable for things like drugs and nuclear power where a mistake could injure or kill people. Outside of such high-risk thing
Re:Government Regulation.... uuuuughh.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course that doesn't mean that processes are any good. It does mean that the processes are documented and we stand by them.
There are some good software shops out there that do a good job of vetting their code of bugs: like the guys who make VMWare. Then there are other shops that don't: like the guy who make MS Windows.
Besides it's too late to require government involvement. The accepted industry practice of putting out buggy crap has already been established wit
Re:Government Regulation.... uuuuughh.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government Regulation.... uuuuughh.... (Score:3, Insightful)
While we technically don't have to get approval to sell our products, if we want the cable operators to buy our products, we usually have to get them DOCSIS certified through CableLabs.
Yes, we can sell them without certification and claim DOCSIS compatability, but the cable operators usually like to see that shiny gold star (so to speak).
There are companies that submit every certification wave for approval, which is every quarter (and submitting is not chea
Improving the Quality of Software (Score:2, Insightful)
More to the point, though, a lot of commercial software would be loads better if it had a more thorough testing process. But this would result in such poor times-to-market that the market would've alrea
Good idea... (Score:3, Funny)
what about open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Video game makers do it (Score:3, Interesting)
______________________
Re:Video game makers do it (Score:2, Informative)
Gotta fix 'em all (Score:2)
I've never had a problem with a console game.
Not even Pokemon [slashdot.org]?
Just a guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
Although, software can destroy 20 years of business data and bring down the whole company anyway, but it's easier to mirror/backup your data than it is to mirror/backup your house/office.
Unconstitutional (Score:2)
There are federal standards for code that runs inside medical instruments and code that runs in avionics. It would be great if there were some similar standard for internet desktop software that was mandated for all software license purchases
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Approvals are for a different purpose. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Approvals are for a different purpose. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Approvals are for a different purpose. (Score:3, Informative)
Check the bottom of your keyboard. Next to the sticky notes with passwords, you'll find a blurb like " This device complies with FCC Rules Part 15. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
This device may not cause harmful interference.
This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may causeundesired operation.
This equipment has be
Re:Approvals are for a different purpose. (Score:2, Insightful)
Does your OS interfere with other computers? Well, if a wide open hole allows whole sections of the net to go down, yeah, this widget interferes with other widgets. It may be difficult to burn down the house right now, but just wait until everybody has their home controlled by Windows Longhorn HVAC edition. Or what if a phreaker bri
Re:Approvals are for a different purpose. (Score:2, Interesting)
That's why I said *specific* safety issues (Score:2)
BTW for FCC part 68 testing, stuff connected to the telephone network, there are some specific tests regarding the way the firmware works. So yes, there can be some overlap.
Re:Approvals are for a different purpose. (Score:2)
not every "desktop software environment"
is used for the same purpose, and the data's value depends on what the computer's used for
better "market" software (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just to clearify (Score:2)
Got a website?
Anyway...
Assuming that you're telling the truth and not trolling, Marx wasn't quite as anti-capitalist as you think. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient means of distributing resources--far better than any other method known to man. However, it's already founded on small socialist dictatorships we call "families."
A socialist/communist movement should not try and tear capitalism down; instead, it should try and raise the bar, to get to a level where anyone c
Re:Just to clearify (Score:2)
Economics is just a field of study: The study of scare resources amongst unlimited desire. It isn't economics that is inherently evil, but the fact that people have unlimited desire. If people were able to show any kind of restraint and self control, the whole issue of Communism, Capitalism, or any other kind of dogma becomes a moot point, I think.
Re:Just to clearify (Score:2)
The answer is easy... (Score:2)
Find a middle man in Mexico, as Mexico has very few laws regulating the importation of products from overseas, and the United States has greatly deregulated the laws concerning the importation of anything from Mexico due to NAFTA/WTO/etc.
Try here for starters:http://www.importexporthelp.com/ [importexporthelp.com]
Software is extremely difficult to regulate and probably won't ever be done, especially with the power of certain large corporations who put out shitty software and have no intention on releasing the source for insp
The solutions is simple really - shareware (Score:2)
You get to test the software to see if it fits your needs and if it's stable
Everyone can still release software
As a bonus bugs can be discovered more easily by having a large amount of testers Ofcourse this is what is really good about most opensource software, as in many cases you don't have to pay a license either.
Cost, always Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What? Fit for Purpose? (Score:3, Funny)
La La La...I can't hear you...La La La...
Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so with software. You can't know what hardware the end user will use. You can;t know every little idiosyncracy of every private network on the planet. You can't cover every edge case. Standardized testing like hardware can be put through is far less meaningful in such an environment.
This is not to say that testing, particularly thotough and thoughful testing is not desirable, I just suspect that it takes something other than a cookie cutter approach to test software thoroughly.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Software products already have supported hardware stuff on the boxes. Your saying that a piece of software cannot be certified to do said function on X pieces of hardware?
You can;t know every little idiosyncracy of every private network on the planet.
So? This product is certified to run on any standard ethernet network or whatever, does not seem too difficult.
You can't cover every edge case.
Dunno what this is, next.
Standar
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
No, I am saying that testing 1 is trivial... testing the plethora of, for example PC hardware, well... ...try in the words of one of my former bosses, "being a real man and writing your own device drivers." If you deal with 1 set of standard hardware, the job is easier, in one respect, but consider: the demands for perfection are so mu
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
No friend, you are pretty mcuh missing the point, it is because software is designed properly for software that this doesn't matter. You don't write for every fouled up network config, you write to a standard... But, the standards you apply to writing code for software, do not apply to writing code for hardware, a much more stringent set of rules is in place there. The reason, how much does it cost
Who is going to pay for this? (Score:2)
The answers the the first two questions are obvious and make this a bad idea, Major s/w releases - like new MS Win/Office releases, Samba, KDE, Mozilla, the kernel . . . - go out for beta-testing by people who often know what the hell they are doing. Making that a necessity for small products (who decides what
Bad for free software (Score:2, Insightful)
Obvious: Hardware and Software are different. (Score:2)
Software isn't the same - the end user (or others) can fairly easily modify it to operate in a manner it was not intended to, and there's really no way to guarantee what happens to bits on the user's storage media.
Simple question, simple answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad software may have driven people to suicide
but I don't imagine there is any precedent for
changing the rules for software.
You can't (unless it's software that has a
real 'life-or-death' aspect) compare the
requirements to hardware certification.
Where such certification is required, the
software is produced by companies with big
bucks to invest and customers who are prepared
to pay what is costs to produce certifiably
good software.
Before
It's not really feasable.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup (Score:2)
You can get that in software, but your gonna pay for it. There are contracts for medical, government, military, transportation, etc that say that the software will work(tm).
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 i
Upgrade (Score:2)
SQA (Score:3, Interesting)
Software Testing/Quality Assurance is supposed to perform this function.
The problem is often insufficient tools.
The company I work for as a Software Test Automation Specialist is looking at WorkSoft Certify [worksoft.com] and we like what we see, except the price-point (approximately triple our current tool: Rational Robot [ibm.com]), however, that is currently in negotiations.
Speed, Price, and Quality (Score:2, Interesting)
As consumers we tend to want everything now, and cheaply. This would obviously push down the quality of the product. Being an impulse buyer myself I find most products pretty much suck these days because manufacturers (of software or hardware) kn
Over Bill Gate's rotting corpse (Score:2)
A UL for software would greatly hurt FOSS, as few FOSS projects could afford the cost to get registered. No stickee, no washee - you would find GREAT resistance to deploying FOSS.
Aircraft software (Score:2, Informative)
Council of Wise Men (Score:2, Insightful)
- "Your window manager isn't friendly enough to people with one hand and colorblindness. Sorry, you'll have to try again before you can legally release it."
- "Your human int
I am in the process of doing this now. (Score:2, Informative)
my $.02
Government regulations, Lawsuits, and Free Markets (Score:2, Informative)
Software is a new animal, and neither the government nor the common law has caught up with it. (Hollerith cards @ 100 y/o vs. the Code of Hammura
Because software doesn't explode. (Score:3, Insightful)
...unless that software controls the confinement ring in your homemade fusion reactor....
Software Approvals for Consumer Markets? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your questions is the kind of question that:
A) Children in their wide-eyed innocence would ask. or
B) Blooming genius would ask out of fortituded and courage and be shunned
I beg you to take the compliment that A) and B) bestow upon you.
To answer you;
your simple question begs a complex answer,...here goes,...
Hardware is a physical commodity whose use is subject to, The laws of thermodynamics, the Law of Gravity , the restrictions of the Laws of Entropy and choatic disorder, laws of motion, etc.
it *sounds* good (Score:2, Insightful)
The best model we can probably hope fo
Cost of entry... (Score:2)
The almighty buck (Score:2)
I know that this argument sounds rather hollow in the face of the enormous commercial success of certain error-prone software and operating systems, but...
The best consumer market approval should be (and will probably always be) the almighty consumer dollar.
We're not talking about machines that can be quantifiably tested for quality control in labs and upheld to rigid engineering standards. We're talking intangibles. Creating and enforcing regulatory standards for bits and bytes is far to complex and a
two reasons (Score:2)
If the hardware futzes up, it's not an internet download, or a "I'll mail you the CD" step away from recoving that upset customer.
Plus, it's very hard (although there's probably a VB command to do it) for software to expose it's users to UV radiation, microwaves, flying parts, etc.
To use the same product as the poster references:
Imagine his product goes haywire and blasts out a frequency deafening the user. Now imagine a piece of software trying to do the same. The software
Software and hardware are very different (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is in defining what exactly consitutes a GOOD approval process for any given piece of software. It's often easier to define this for hardware. You define proper operating ranges and how the thing should respond when used or abused in specific ways, and the result is often a product that will behave as expected in almost all realwo
Approvals, etc (Score:2)
a) it helps you determine specifications that become important limits for warranties
b) it ensures you will have minimal exposure to su
You can't patch hardware (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't easily patch hardware. The consumer:
with software once you identify the problem and fix it, the customer might be out of commission a half hour while the download, install, and possibly reboot the machine.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it doesn't guarantee that the software is especially useful or bug-free, it simply means that it follows certain user-interface standards (whether those "standards" are ideal is another question, but consistancy is important). Of course technically, Office 2000 and Media Player should not have passed the certification, but that's another story...
The point is, as others have pointed out: hardware testing is mostly about safety and interference concerns, none of which really applies in the software world (barring specific examples like medical, aviation, or RF software, which already are required to meet certain criteria).
I don't see any standard hardware certifications that could be applied to software (usability, design, functionality, etc). So I'm not totally sure what the OP is asking about...
Add to that, much of the time these days, hardware comes with software; be it firmware, drivers, or a full-blown OS and hard disk (set-top boxes, etc). And many times a very high-quality piece of hardware comes with a buggy, closed, crash-prone driver that makes the thing more useful as a paper weight. Or maybe I'm just bitter about my Lexmark X125...
If you want to know that a particular hardware device is a good buy, high-quality, easy-to-use... you either test it out yourself, or you find reviews from magazines or other sources you trust. You ask a friend who has one. Or you buy hardware from a company you trust, and avoid companies that you don't.
The above paragraph works equally well if you substitute software in place of hardware. Thus, I don't feel we need any standards-bodies (or much worse, any sort of mandated certification procedure) for software any more than what we already have, in those cases where it's life-critical.
Try a free country (Score:2)
off the ground if you were to manufacture
and market in countries that don't suffer
from eurocratic parasitism, such as China
and the U.S.
Term "Software", nearly meaningless... (Score:2)
Consider the adjective "good", we all know how to use this word and we all know when we think something does or doesn't deserve the label. Fair enough.
Now move on to the word "religion" there are all sorts of things that can be religion
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
You can find out how to get those approvals on the respective websites.
If you mean something else, what would that be?
Software used as a medical device... (Score:3, Informative)
Although this kind of software is usually not sold to the general public, it is used every day in hospitals and clinics to do everything from analyzing bacterial infections [biomerieux-usa.com] to robotic surgery [brainlab.com] to radiation oncology [varian.com] treatment planning [cms-stl.com].
I have worked for several software companies, developing software that is considered a class II medical device [fda.gov]. Not only did we have to completely document everything from requirements to validation testing, but we had to keep the documents themselves under version control! Knowing that your software could mean life or death [bizjournals.com] to someone, really puts the software engineering process into perspective.
Depends (Score:2)
On the other hand, if there is (and I suspect there already is)
Much larger problem (Score:2)
You can prove the correctness of, say, the software in a home thermostat because it's almost entirely out of the user's control and therefore fairly simple. The trend in end-user software is toward ever more adjustability, and *nobody knows* what a given customer is going to do with it.
(There seems to be a problem with t
Re:No Software Approvals, Please (Score:2)
Re:No Software Approvals, Please (Score:2)
Many people have made hardware products out of there garage.
Personally, I'd like to see a certification body with some basic software guide lines. Not mandatory, but the software writer could pay a nominal fee to see if it complies to some basic rules of operation.
Re:There are software approvals (Score:2)