I love how in this article "If industry fails to self-regulate, governments might seize the opportunity." is considered a bad outcome. But indeed no one forbid

I love how in this article "If industry fails to self-regulate, governments might seize the opportunity." is considered a bad outcome. But indeed no one forbids anyone from providing certifications or imposing them. I actually have a diploma that says (rightly) that I know how to write provable code and good software. Only once have I been asked to do so by my clients. I, personally and unoriginally, blame Microsoft for the current situation. "Runs on Windows" is a common requirement and when it is present, you know your software won't be held to a higher standard than Microsoft's is. If we had a certification that for instance required that we are 100% certain that a given process can not be interrupted for a software reason, we would need to examine Windows code or blindly trust Microsoft, rendering the first point of the certification moot. I know how to write realtime code where I can give hard guarantees on the time it takes to finish a task. But it requires an explicit and transparent scheduling system, a known IRQ system and a precise account of the number of cycles necessary to execute a given procedure. Maybe it can happen now, but until recently, a certification procedure that would require an open OS would have been seen as ideological.