"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a Homeland
Security Department-funded bug hunt that ranged across 40 popular
open-source programs. The company found less than one-half of one bug per
thousand lines of code on average, and found even fewer defects in the most
widely used code, such as the Linux kernel and the Apache Web server."

"Imhotep" <imhotep@nospam.comwrote in message
news:LuGdne8UPPQkYY_ZRVn-rQ@adelphia.com

"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a Homeland
Security Department-funded bug hunt that ranged across 40 popular
open-source programs. The company found less than one-half of one bug
per thousand lines of code on average, and found even fewer defects
in the most widely used code, such as the Linux kernel and the Apache
Web server."

"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application. It had
only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per thousands lines
of code. "

Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that presents an
order of magnitude error in that summary calculation alone

I quoted and wrote in message news:47go1vFfi1vmU1@individual.net

>"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a
>Homeland Security Department-funded bug hunt
>
"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application.
It had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per
thousands lines of code. "

Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that
presents an order of magnitude error in that summary calculation
alone

Your tax dollars at work. The dumbing-down and fattening-up of American
society continues unabated.

PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
Hash: SHA256

ynotssor wrote, 03/11/2006 08:57 PM:
I quoted and wrote in message news:47go1vFfi1vmU1@individual.net

"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a
Homeland Security Department-funded bug hunt
>"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application.
>It had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per
>thousands lines of code. "
>>
>Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that
>presents an order of magnitude error in that summary calculation
>alone
>
Your tax dollars at work. The dumbing-down and fattening-up of American
society continues unabated.

As far as I can see that is added by the author of the news article, not
by Coverity. http://scan.coverity.com/ show an alphabetic list of
applications.

What I would like to see though is the actual report per application,
which at the moment only seem available to the application maintainer.
They will probably appear in the respective bug tracking systems
eventually, but still, it would be nice to skim through it to see how
serious the bugs are.
- --
-
Kristian Fiskerstrand
http://www.kfwebs.net
-
http://www.secure-my-email.com

http://www.yourblog.in
-
Public PGP key 0x6B0B9508 at http://www.kfwebs.net/pgp/

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://www.secure-my-email.com
Comment:

//

6xnNbUS/yLM=
=hn5u
PGP SIGNATURE

"ynotssor" <ynotssor@example.netwrites:

>"Imhotep" <imhotep@nospam.comwrote in message
>news:LuGdne8UPPQkYY_ZRVn-rQ@adelphia.com

>"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a Homeland
>Security Department-funded bug hunt that ranged across 40 popular
>open-source programs. The company found less than one-half of one bug
>per thousand lines of code on average, and found even fewer defects
>in the most widely used code, such as the Linux kernel and the Apache
>Web server."

>"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application. It had
>only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per thousands lines
>of code. "

>Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that presents an
>order of magnitude error in that summary calculation alone

Could of course have simply been a typo

PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
Hash: SHA256

ynotssor wrote, 03/11/2006 08:57 PM:
I quoted and wrote in message news:47go1vFfi1vmU1@individual.net

"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a
Homeland Security Department-funded bug hunt
>"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application.
>It had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per
>thousands lines of code. "
>>
>Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that
>presents an order of magnitude error in that summary calculation
>alone
>
Your tax dollars at work. The dumbing-down and fattening-up of American
society continues unabated.

As far as I can see that is added by the author of the news article, not
by Coverity. http://scan.coverity.com/ show an alphabetic list of
applications.

What I would like to see though is the actual report per application,
which at the moment only seem available to the application maintainer.
They will probably appear in the respective bug tracking systems
eventually, but still, it would be nice to skim through it to see how
serious the bugs are.
- --
-
Kristian Fiskerstrand
http://www.kfwebs.net
-
http://www.secure-my-email.com

http://www.yourblog.in
-
Public PGP key 0x6B0B9508 at http://www.kfwebs.net/pgp/

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://www.secure-my-email.com
Comment:

//

6xnNbUS/yLM=
=hn5u
PGP SIGNATURE

"ynotssor" <ynotssor@example.netwrites:

>"Imhotep" <imhotep@nospam.comwrote in message
>news:LuGdne8UPPQkYY_ZRVn-rQ@adelphia.com

>"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a Homeland
>Security Department-funded bug hunt that ranged across 40 popular
>open-source programs. The company found less than one-half of one bug
>per thousand lines of code on average, and found even fewer defects
>in the most widely used code, such as the Linux kernel and the Apache
>Web server."

>"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application. It had
>only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per thousands lines
>of code. "

>Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that presents an
>order of magnitude error in that summary calculation alone

Could of course have simply been a typo

ynotssor wrote:

Have you ever gone through code? If you did I think you would question it

"Imhotep" <imhotep@nospam.comwrote in message
news:LuGdne8UPPQkYY_ZRVn-rQ@adelphia.com
>
>"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a Homeland
>Security Department-funded bug hunt that ranged across 40 popular
>open-source programs. The company found less than one-half of one bug
>per thousand lines of code on average, and found even fewer defects
>in the most widely used code, such as the Linux kernel and the Apache
>Web server."
>
"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application. It
had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per thousands
lines of code. "

Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that presents an
order of magnitude error in that summary calculation alone

ynotssor wrote:

BS! This has been need for some time. Since the overall quality of software
has been "dumbed down". indeed, let's look at how software involves our
lives: Aircontroller software, Banking software, maybe software quality
should have been taken more seriously along time ago?

Im

I quoted and wrote in message news:47go1vFfi1vmU1@individual.net

"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a
Homeland Security Department-funded bug hunt
>>
>"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application.
>It had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per
>thousands lines of code. "
>>
>Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that
>presents an order of magnitude error in that summary calculation
>alone
>
Your tax dollars at work. The dumbing-down and fattening-up of American
society continues unabated.

ynotssor wrote:

Have you ever gone through code? If you did I think you would question it

"Imhotep" <imhotep@nospam.comwrote in message
news:LuGdne8UPPQkYY_ZRVn-rQ@adelphia.com
>
>"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a Homeland
>Security Department-funded bug hunt that ranged across 40 popular
>open-source programs. The company found less than one-half of one bug
>per thousand lines of code on average, and found even fewer defects
>in the most widely used code, such as the Linux kernel and the Apache
>Web server."
>
"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application. It
had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per thousands
lines of code. "

Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that presents an
order of magnitude error in that summary calculation alone

ynotssor wrote:

BS! This has been need for some time. Since the overall quality of software
has been "dumbed down". indeed, let's look at how software involves our
lives: Aircontroller software, Banking software, maybe software quality
should have been taken more seriously along time ago?

Im

I quoted and wrote in message news:47go1vFfi1vmU1@individual.net

"Coverity Inc. of San Francisco has released the results of a
Homeland Security Department-funded bug hunt
>>
>"The cleanest program was XMMS, a Unix-based multimedia application.
>It had only six bugs in its 116,899 lines of code, or .51 bugs per
>thousands lines of code. "
>>
>Hmmm, one has to question the entire validity of a study that
>presents an order of magnitude error in that summary calculation
>alone
>
Your tax dollars at work. The dumbing-down and fattening-up of American
society continues unabated.