Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:23 UTC, submitted by Just_A_User
FreeBSD On Tuesday, code-analysis software maker Coverity announced that its automated bug finding tool had analyzed the community-built operating system FreeBSD and flagged 306 potential software flaws, or about one issue for every 4,000 lines of code. The low number of flaws found by the system underscores that FreeBSD's manual auditing by project members has reduced the vulnerabilities in the operating system, said Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity.
Permalink for comment 6683
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is pretty funny
by Steven on Wed 20th Jul 2005 09:00 UTC
Member since:

You know, I just checked, and the whole FreeBSD source tree (yes, whole OS, not just kernel) is only about twice the size of the current Linux Kernel:

212725760 Jul 20 02:21 linux-
408421888 Jul 20 02:06 FreeBSD-5.4-sources-all.tar

Who was saying something about the Linux kernel not having a lot of bloat?

Anyway, I have a question for you all. What significance is "lines of code" as a measurement? Shouldn't it be "errors per character" or some such?

I mean, even if this was only comparing kernels (which it doesn't specify), having 1.2 Million lines of code in FreeBSD and 5.7 Million in Linux doesn't that mean that Linux is nearly 5 times the size of the FreeBSD kernel?

It isn't, it's only 1/2 the size.

94176256 Jul 20 02:50 FreeBSD-kernel.tar
212725760 Jul 20 02:21 linux-

Shouldn't this mean that there would be either 2.8 million in the FreeBSD kernel or 2.4 million in Linux?

In either case, to answer some earlier question, yes, it does mean FreeBSD has less errors of this type than linux does, as we can see from the errors to data ratio:

306/90MB (3.4 per MB) vs 950/202MB (4.7 per MB), or, to put it plainly, it means the FreeBSD kernel has roughly 28% less of these types of errors than Linux does?

Lines of code seems a nonsensical measurement, as
return 0;

May be counted as two lines, or even three, who knows?


Reply Score: 2