Feeds

Open and closed source software defects reloaded

Rhyme and Reasoning

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

New hybrid storage solutions

Open source and closed source software packages start out with roughly equivalent defect rates even though code inspection gives OS packages an edge over time.

That's the conclusion of a pair of studies by software tools vendor Reasoning.

In the first study, published in February, 2003, Reasoning found that the TCP/IP protocol stack implementation in version 2.4.19 of the open source Linux kernel has fewer defects than the protocol stacks of several commercial equivalents.

Reasoning found eight defects in 81,852 lines of Linux kernel source code - the fewest number of defects of the various implementations of TCP/IP inspected by the company as part of its study.

In a second study, published yesterday, Reasoning found the software quality of Apache v2.1 roughly on par with commercial Web server equivalents.

The defect density of the Apache code inspected was 0.53 per thousand lines of source code, while the commercial average defect density came to 0.51 per thousand lines of source code. In all 31 software defects were found in 58,944 lines of Apache v2.1.

Apache v2.1 is a less mature open source package than the Linux kernel reviewed in Reasoning's February study. Reasoning uses this factor to explain the discrepancy in findings between its two studies.

Reasoning concludes from its studies that "there is a correlation between code inspection/peer review and the resulting defect density".

Which is what common sense would have suggested in the first place.

Reasoning studies were derived from its automated software inspection services and used a "combination of proprietary technology and repeatable process". The company said that the results from its code inspection services are "objective and comparable across software applications, development methodologies, and coding styles".

The results of Reasoning's Apache V2.1 inspection can be obtained here. ®

Related Stories

Open and closed security are roughly equivalent
.NET 'more secure' than WebSphere
All bugs are created equal
Want to know the ten most critical web app vulnerabilities?

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
Multiple desktops and live tiles in restored Start button star in new vids
Not appy with your Chromebook? Well now it can run Android apps
Google offers beta of tricky OS-inside-OS tech
New 'Cosmos' browser surfs the net by TXT alone
No data plan? No WiFi? No worries ... except sluggish download speed
Greater dev access to iOS 8 will put us AT RISK from HACKERS
Knocking holes in Apple's walled garden could backfire, says securo-chap
NHS grows a NoSQL backbone and rips out its Oracle Spine
Open source? In the government? Ha ha! What, wait ...?
Google extends app refund window to two hours
You now have 120 minutes to finish that game instead of 15
Intel: Hey, enterprises, drop everything and DO HADOOP
Big Data analytics projected to run on more servers than any other app
prev story

Whitepapers

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.