Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240400 > unrolled thread

This years Coverity scan

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  This years Coverity scan Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-26 23:42 +0200
    Re: This years Coverity scan Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 17:24 -0700
    Re: This years Coverity scan GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-26 19:32 -0600
      Re: This years Coverity scan Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 19:06 -0700
        Errors per line of code ? !  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-26 19:23 -0700
          Re: Errors per line of code ? ! Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 20:25 -0700
            @snit should publish his monthly rate.  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-26 21:34 -0700
              Re: @snit should publish his monthly rate.  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 21:40 -0700
                @snit should publish his monthly rate.  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-26 22:27 -0700
                  Re: @snit should publish his monthly rate.  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 23:16 -0700
                    @snit is bat·shit crazy.  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-27 00:51 -0700
                      Re: @snit is bat·shit crazy.  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 09:20 -0700
              Re: @snit should publish his monthly rate. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 11:09 -0700
    Re: This years Coverity scan Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 11:00 -0400
      Re: This years Coverity scan 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-27 11:38 -0400
        Re: This years Coverity scan Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 12:41 -0400
          Re: This years Coverity scan GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-27 11:20 -0600
            Re: This years Coverity scan Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 15:13 -0400
      Re: This years Coverity scan Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 09:31 -0700
    Re: This years Coverity scan DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 19:30 -0400
      Re: This years Coverity scan Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-29 01:42 +0200
        Re: This years Coverity scan Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 20:09 -0400
          Re: This years Coverity scan DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-29 19:50 -0400
        Re: This years Coverity scan William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-04-29 09:18 +0100
        Re: This years Coverity scan chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-29 07:00 -0500
          Re: This years Coverity scan 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-29 08:13 -0400
            Re: This years Coverity scan Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 14:32 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#240747

DFS wrote:

> On 4/26/2014 5:42 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Coverity scan has again published their report about error density.
>>
>> This time OSS code was in *all* categories better than CSS code (last
>> year it was better in all categories with code below 1.000.000 lines).
>> Tested was NetBSD, FreeBSD, LibreOffice and Linux among other OSS
> 
> Just those 4 projects represented 18% of the total scanned OSS code.

Naturally. They comprise most of the source code lines

> Those 4 alone could skew the results in favor of OSS.

Only if they are any good.
 
> 
>> The result this year was 0.59 per kloc for OSS, 0.72 for CSS
>>
>> The linux code they scanned ( 8.5 million lines of code) resulted in 0.61
>> per kloc
>>
>> So far for the repeated claims of "hobby ware" made by some dimbulbs
> 
> By definition it's hobbyware, since most of it is created by unpaid
> developers in their spare time, for fun.

This is bullshit, and you know it.
Most of the smaller projects are done by unpaid developers.
The big ones (kernel, X, KDE) are mostly done by company paid developers
 
> And it shows in the usage, where you get ridiculous bugs such as mice
> being identified as keyboards, same app listed 16x, apps not sorted
> alphabetically, Trash file handling inconsistencies, inability to sort
> numbers (KDiskFree), etc.
> 
> The most bullshit bugs I've ever seen have been in open source.

All of your "bullshit bugs" are just incredibly tiny ones
> 
>> The code quality of OSS software was *better* acrosss the board compared
>> to CSS code
> 
> Coverity's code is closed source.  

So what? Is closed source suddenly "bad" because it says that other CSS is 
not as good as OSS?

> So is yours.  

Yes. So what? I have done OSS when that denomination was not even widely 
known. It was before the "internet" even came into existance

> And Creepy's.  And
> SMelzzzzz's. And every developer's here on cola.

That has still nothing to do with OSS im general
 
> I downloaded
> http://softwareintegrity.coverity.com/rs/coverity/images/2013-Coverity-Scan-Report.pdf
> 
> Look at Table 4: it's horseshit.  Their supposed "Average Defect
> Density" increased 300%+ from 2009 to 2010, then suddenly dropped by 44%
> in 2011.
> 
> Ridiculous.

Really?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240759

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> Coverity's code is closed source.  
>> So is yours.  
>> And Creepy's.  And
>> SMelzzzzz's. And every developer's here on cola.
>
> That has still nothing to do with OSS im general

Our code belongs to the customer.  They get the source, they do as they will
with it.

I would prefer they post it, as it was paid for with government funds.

However, it is so purpose specific that only a bit of it would be of
interest to the general public.

Doofus, as usual, is confused.  Liking and espousing OSS does not mean that
you have to work for an "open-source" outfit.

Not in the least.

And, if you want to be picky, the code that is "mine" is indeed open-source,
or soon will be.

I wonder if the clown understands MiB vs MB yet, or that various entities
play fast-and-loose with megabyte units.

He should try "du" vice "du -h", and "du -m".

-- 
Harrison's Postulate:
	For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240842

On 4/28/2014 8:09 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Coverity's code is closed source.
>>> So is yours.
>>> And Creepy's.  And
>>> SMelzzzzz's. And every developer's here on cola.
>>
>> That has still nothing to do with OSS im general
>
> Our code belongs to the customer.  They get the source, they do as they will
> with it.
>
> I would prefer they post it, as it was paid for with government funds.

I wish so, too.  Then we could see your weenie code.  Well, we could see 
your weenie code if you actually wrote production code.


> However, it is so purpose specific that only a bit of it would be of
> interest to the general public.
>
> Doofus, as usual, is confused.  Liking and espousing OSS does not mean that
> you have to work for an "open-source" outfit.
>
> Not in the least.

Never said you had to.


> And, if you want to be picky, the code that is "mine" is indeed open-source,
> or soon will be.
>
> I wonder if the clown understands MiB vs MB yet, or that various entities
> play fast-and-loose with megabyte units.

Various open source entities, you mean.  I've never once seen such 
bullshit in MS products.



> He should try "du" vice "du -h", and "du -m".

'du' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable 
program or batch file.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240764

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2014 5:42 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Coverity scan has again published their report about error density.
>>>
>>> This time OSS code was in *all* categories better than CSS code (last
>>> year it was better in all categories with code below 1.000.000 lines).
>>> Tested was NetBSD, FreeBSD, LibreOffice and Linux among other OSS
>> 
>> Just those 4 projects represented 18% of the total scanned OSS code.
>
> Naturally. They comprise most of the source code lines
>
>> Those 4 alone could skew the results in favor of OSS.
>
> Only if they are any good.
>  
>> 
>>> The result this year was 0.59 per kloc for OSS, 0.72 for CSS
>>>
>>> The linux code they scanned ( 8.5 million lines of code) resulted in 0.61
>>> per kloc
>>>
>>> So far for the repeated claims of "hobby ware" made by some dimbulbs
>> 
>> By definition it's hobbyware, since most of it is created by unpaid
>> developers in their spare time, for fun.
>
> This is bullshit, and you know it.

Of course it's bullshit.

> Most of the smaller projects are done by unpaid developers.
> The big ones (kernel, X, KDE) are mostly done by company paid developers

And it's "hobbyware created by unpaid developers in their spare time, for
fun" that runs the world's fastest supercomputers. Just when you thought
DumbFor$ure couldn't get any *more* idiotic, up the troll pops to prove you
wrong.

>> And it shows in the usage, where you get ridiculous bugs such as mice
>> being identified as keyboards, same app listed 16x, apps not sorted
>> alphabetically, Trash file handling inconsistencies, inability to sort
>> numbers (KDiskFree), etc.
>> 
>> The most bullshit bugs I've ever seen have been in open source.
>
> All of your "bullshit bugs" are just incredibly tiny ones
>> 
>>> The code quality of OSS software was *better* acrosss the board compared
>>> to CSS code
>> 
>> Coverity's code is closed source.  
>
> So what? Is closed source suddenly "bad" because it says that other CSS is 
> not as good as OSS?
>
>> So is yours.  
>
> Yes. So what? I have done OSS when that denomination was not even widely 
> known. It was before the "internet" even came into existance
>
>> And Creepy's.  And
>> SMelzzzzz's. And every developer's here on cola.
>
> That has still nothing to do with OSS im general
>  
>> I downloaded
>> http://softwareintegrity.coverity.com/rs/coverity/images/2013-Coverity-Scan-Report.pdf
>> 
>> Look at Table 4: it's horseshit.  Their supposed "Average Defect
>> Density" increased 300%+ from 2009 to 2010, then suddenly dropped by 44%
>> in 2011.
>> 
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Really?

DumFor$ure, full of strawman arguments.

-- 
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. 
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." 
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240770

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Dumfsck wrote:
>> 
>> By definition it's hobbyware, since most of it is created by unpaid
>> developers in their spare time, for fun.

By definition you're a dumfscking liar and worthless asshole whose
opinion means nothing.

>This is bullshit, and you know it.
>Most of the smaller projects are done by unpaid developers.
>The big ones (kernel, X, KDE) are mostly done by company paid developers

And even those smaller projects are mostly done by professional
programmers, doing what they enjoy, which is when people often do
their best work.

-- 
"one would hope (OSS) does look like the work of amateurs since they
are indeed amateurs most of the time."  -  "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240772

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:00:23 -0500, chrisv wrote:


> And even those smaller projects are mostly done by professional
> programmers, doing what they enjoy, which is when people often do
> their best work.

If these projects are examples of their best work, they must really
suck at their day programmers job.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240775

flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:00:23 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> And even those smaller projects are mostly done by professional
>> programmers, doing what they enjoy, which is when people often do
>> their best work.
>
> If these projects are examples of their best work, they must really
> suck at their day programmers job.

If you want to see what really sucks just install and "play" the latest
Android offerings from "indies". Absolute garbage. There are of course a
few exceptions. But how they are even allowed to add this crap to the
PlayStore is beyond me. Of course not all is crap. "The Room" is
fantastic for its genre as is the newly released XCOM Enemy Unknown
(which the freetards hate because it actually costs quite alot - and not
surprising since its a full PC/PS3 game port). The Angry Birds games on
Android are great too as are the LucasArts adventures (Monkey Island,
LeChuck etc).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLbEdGjHK0I

Impressive.

-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web