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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240747

Re: This years Coverity scan

Show all headers | View raw

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?

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web