[PinguTS]

There is ISO26262 for automotive about safety.

Yes, there are reviews, QA, and all of that. So, yes, there is no single person responsible (exceptions apply).

But there is no excuse for using 3rd party libs. Just don't use it. If you not know: do not use it.

That is the reason, why certifications are for. The same rules apply for medical and other areas.

[colatkinson]

> But there is no excuse for using 3rd party libs. Just don't use it. If you not know: do not use it.

Wait, what? That goes against one of the core benefits of open source software--that having many eyes on a problem decreases the risk of bugs. I'm willing to bet that if Uber had to implement their own machine learning/vision libraries from the ground up, there would be significantly more issues.

[henrikeh]

Is there any evidence that this is the case? That simply putting more eyes on a system will reveal its problems?

Certification etc is about process. Open source code can be used in a safety critical product, but it must audited and confirmed against the system requirements.

[PinguTS]

Please do not get me started with the argument over "it is open source, so there are many eyes who have seen the code".

The problem with that is, nobody audits code, if it is working just for fun. And even if it is buggy, then most people look for bugs in their own software and then they work around, so that the original piece is not modified.

We have this seen in many open source projects. Remember all the obvious, mostly security related, bugs that weren't uncovered for years. They weren't uncovered because everybody thought: "huh, that is hard. I assume that other more experienced than I will have reviewed it, so I will trust it."

The thing with certification is, that it is required that it is really reviewed. That there is a guarantee that it is reviewed. That there were people with a different mind set, with different background have reviewed it and as such have brought in their own view.

Certification does not guarantee that something bug free. It guarantees only, it is reviewed. Open source has no guarantee that it is reviewed. There is only hope, that someone has reviewed it.

[Schwolop]

In ISO13485 medical grade software (certain levels of it anyway), the same concept applies. Anything not written in house is "SOUP"; Software of Unknown Provenance. You're required to pass that through a review process before using it, and in many instances it's not worth the effort to review compared to instead just re-writing it yourself.

[superfrank]

> But there is no excuse for using 3rd party libs. Just don't use it. If you not know: do not use it.

Pretty much everything in development relies on the work of other people. I used 3rd party lib just as an example, but what if it's in the framework or even the language that an engineer uses, who would be at fault then? You can't expect every developer to have gone through the entire source code for whatever language they are writing in.

Sciences build on each other and and after a certain period of time you have to take things for granted in order to keep moving forward.

> The same rules apply for medical and other areas.

No, they don't. Doctors kill patients all the time and they aren't banned from medicine for it. There is an investigation, they make sure it wasn't intentional and there wasn't any gross negligence and that this isn't a repeating pattern, if none of those are the case they see what they can learn from it and move forward in hopes that what they learn can help other doctors.

[Glawen]

That's why in iso 26262 you can only use certified compiler and tools. Rust compiler is not certified for example. Sure you can use 3rd party libs, but they must be certified.

I agree dith parent: never use copy paste from internet in safety critical SW, anyway it most probably isn't designed for your use cade. Personally I always have been disapointed by copy pasting stuff, it was always buggy somehow. In the end I always reimplemented it from scratch by reading the theory