|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0xbadcafebee
859 days ago
|
|
|
Those aren't really like building codes. Building codes are effectively minimum specifications for safety, with the requirement that they can be inspected and approved. The codes eventually became more uniform, but their original intent was to prevent shoddy workmanship from creating hazardous conditions. SOC II and ISO 27001 have to do with security, which is close to safety, but not the same. GDPR and HIPAA are concerned with privacy, which is more related to security than safety. The rest are about compatibility. If somebody breaks into a building, that's a security issue. If the building falls down, that's a safety issue. Software can be secure, private, and compatible, and still crash all the time. Safety isn't the same as reliability, but safety tends to lead to reliability, because if it wasn't reliable, it wouldn't be all that safe. So I think we could use standards that focus more on safety [and reliability]. It won't make the products make more money - in fact, it'll cost more to make them. But the result will be better for people and society overall, the way building codes have been. |
|
|
And therein lies the difference...a building collapsing will kill its tenants. Software collapsing will make someone late for dinner.
When software is critical, there are safety standards: DO-178C, DO-330, ISO 13485, ISO 14971, etc.