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.
Thread beginning with comment 6567
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9
by eMagius on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9"
eMagius
Member since:
2005-07-06

"The recent 2.6 Linux production kernel now shipping in
operating system products from Novell and other major Linux software companies contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the industry average for commercial enterprise software."

FreeBSD seems to have about 1.2 million lines of code (306 potential flaws * 4000 lines/flaw). An example of code bloat in Linux (which is just a kernel, compared to the full operating system that is FreeBSD)?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9
by on Wed 20th Jul 2005 01:19 in reply to "RE[2]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9"
Member since:

"Coverity found 306 software defects in FreeBSD's 1.2 million lines of code, or an average of 0.25 defects per 1,000 lines of code. In a December 2004 study of the Linux kernel, Coverity found 985 software defects in 5.7 million lines of code, or an average of 0.17 defects per 1,000 lines of code."

"We want to emphasize that the Linux code base is larger and has more driver support than FreeBSD."

http://www.coverity.com/news/nf_news_06_27_05_story_9.html

Enough said.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9
by on Wed 20th Jul 2005 03:03 in reply to "RE[3]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9"
Member since:

Yes, but FreeBSD has achieved this with much less resources than Linux (both in terms of money, the number of committers, and corporate support) and FreeBSD 6.0 hasn't even been released yet.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9
by renox on Wed 20th Jul 2005 05:20 in reply to "RE[2]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>An example of code bloat in Linux (which is just a kernel, compared to the full operating system that is FreeBSD)?

Or an effect of the higher number of drivers available in the Linux kernel?

If this is the case, it really show the power of Linux..

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9
by on Wed 20th Jul 2005 06:42 in reply to "RE[3]: FreeBSD beat Linux 2.6.9"
Member since:

LOL LOL LOL!

Ok, so AIX has a higher number of statically checked possible bugs than the reported number for BSD and the Linux kernel. How in the hell can you state that AIX or anything else that IBM does is representative of all proprietary software?

AIX and what IBM produces and the very few places you've worked STILL aren't enough of a dataset to be meaningful except to compare what AIX and IBM's work is compared to the stuff cited with these checks on the BSD and Linux kernel. As hard as it is to believe, there are actually proprietary software solutions that will be at a higher level of perfection than what you've measured, even though what you're using as a measuring stick is from IBM. And I mention once again, there's a hell of a lot of open source stuff that has simply not been measured, because it is so limited and/or crappy that nobody gives a crap that it exists, and thus, the statistics mean nothing, except for comparing AIX and that bit of stuff to BSD or Linux kernels and what they've measured. Your attempt at proving your point fails the test of logic, still, to put forth a "proof" of which is higher quality: OSS or proprietary code, because you're working with an incredibly limited set of data, compared to what exists in the wild.

Reply Parent Score: 0