Open Source Code as Flawed as Proprietary: Study

CNET ^ | 2 July 03 | Stephen Shankland

[for-q-clinton]

It seams that this article has objective evidence that Open Source is just as buggy as Closed, but then it goes on to make subjective claims as to why it may end up being better. Why not just give us the facts and as Fox News says...You Decide.

Either way I find it interesting the TCP/IP stack is so mature in Linux...think it might be because they have some stolen IP sitting in there? You know the article could have mentioned that too since it went from objective to subjective.

[for-q-clinton]

Come on over to this thread. It's a bit more on topic to discuss Open Source vs. Closed. And it actually has evidence that Open Source is just as buggy.

[lelio]

What the heck is a "defective" line of code, and how do they know it is like that? Did they go through all the code in Apache and examine it ... for something?
This report seems meaningless to me.

[thoughtomator]

Sure, open source can be as buggy as proprietary software - sometimes even more so. The whole point of open source is that if you need to modify the software for any reason, you can, and you can modify it exactly as you wish without being hostage to the whims and schedule of another company.

[for-q-clinton]

Sure, open source can be as buggy as proprietary software - sometimes even more so. The whole point of open source is that if you need to modify the software for any reason, you can, and you can modify it exactly as you wish without being hostage to the whims and schedule of another company.

Really, so you're telling me my Grandma can edit the code if she hits a bug?

[SauronOfMordor]

Really, so you're telling me my Grandma can edit the code if she hits a bug?

Yes, your Grandma can edit her copy of the source (since she has her own copy of the source), and play with it on her own system to her heart's content. Then, if her changes produce an actual improvement, and she can demonstrate that convincingly to others, then they can import the same changes. If the changes are proven over time, then maybe Linus will incorporate them into the base release

[for-q-clinton]

This report seems meaningless to me.

Before dismissing it out of hand why not do a little research on the issue. If I was an Open Source proponent I'd want to really understand this before I dismissed it. My guess is that they look at all the fixes that have been out within some set time period after the product was released. And by this study Open Source lost, but I'm sure if you applied statistics to the numbers it would show it was really a tie, so I'm not going to quibble that point.

[for-q-clinton]

But my grandmother doesn't know how to code, so she'd have to be beholden to the whims of a developer that she has to pay to fix it. And that developer may or may not really know the code in question, so she's taking a gamble.

Hey now I see why developers love Linux. They can charge fees to people who will never be able to challenge them. I now see the boondoggle in this Linux scam. Sign me up, I want to rip off people too.

[justlurking]

Either way I find it interesting the TCP/IP stack is so mature in Linux...think it might be because they have some stolen IP sitting in there?

Almost all OS'es (including Windows) derived their original implementation of TCP/IP from code lifted out of BSD. The same is true for many "dedicated" devices like routers. The BSD license explicitly permits this.

Go back to your job with SCO.

[thoughtomator]

If she knows how to code, yes she can! Isn't it a beautiful thing?

[thoughtomator]

The truth of the story is that LINUX is not for everybody. But for people who do have the ability to write code, it is an improvement over Microsoft by an order of magnitude along any axis one cares to measure - price, support, efficiency, flexibility, compatibility, etc., etc.

[for-q-clinton]

Almost all OS'es (including Windows) derived their original implementation of TCP/IP from code lifted out of BSD. The same is true for many "dedicated" devices like routers. The BSD license explicitly permits this.

Actually I agree with you for the most part on this. But the article praises Linux for doing nothing more than copying someone elses code. So it may not be stolen, but Linux still runs that risk and they do have a good point that Linux has matured extremely quickly since IBM entered the fray. It matured quickly compared to other OSS and Closed source software. Other then subjective reasoning, what facts can you give me that would show me otherwise?

[for-q-clinton]

it is an improvement over Microsoft by an order of magnitude along any axis one cares to measure - price, support, efficiency, flexibility, compatibility, etc., etc.

Care to provide any proof of that claim? Or did you just make that up?

[Nick Danger]

objective evidence that Open Source is just as buggy as Closed

That's an interesting way to describe it. That, and the headline, remind me of the old joke about the day that Nixon, to impress some reporters, stepped out of the presidential yacht and walked across the Potomac to shore. The next day's headline was "Nixon Can't Swim."

Two equally-accurate headlines here are "Open Source Code as Good as Proprietary" and "Little Quality Difference Found between Open, Closed Source Software."

But we didn't get any of those. We got "Open Source Can't Swim." We see this stuff every day on FR. Usually it's "Bush Can't Swim" or "GOP Pollutes River With Old Shoes." In politics it's liberal bias. It's reporters trying to help the Democrats. The only time I've ever seen this kind of thing in a trade rag is when the Publisher (read: Ad Salesman-in-Chief) is leaning on the Editor to "give our friends the benefit of the doubt."

[ThinkDifferent]

Not surprising at all. In the initial stages of a project it's likely that not much testing or debugging has been done, so equal error rates are exactly what I'd expect to see.

[justlurking]

The review compared version 2.1 of the Apache Web server software, which is used to house Web sites, with several commercial packages that handle the same chores.

The interesting part is their choice of versions. In February 2003, Netcraft reported that Apache 2.x was about 1% (yes, one) of Apache deployments. 99% are running Apache 1.x.

Although new features are going into Apache 2.x, Apache 1.x continues to be maintained and is apparently adequate for most servers.

[gitmo]

The release rate of patches is about the same.

The problem would seem to be in selecting the patches to apply. Unless the owner is savvy enough to discriminate between 3 patches for the same problem, he's at the mercy of their persuasive powers.

At least, that was the issue I saw in the old Unix days. I've not been involved in the linux world.

[DannyTN]

Let's compare the inspection process.

In open source code you have hundreds or thousands or programers inspecting the code and submitting revisions.

In proprietary source code, Microsoft uses it's critical mass to obtain a monopoly position then dumps unbugged software on the market with incentives to upgrade. Hundreds of thousands of Microsoft users then discover flaws while trying to use the product. Microsoft then issues patches weekly to fix the flaws.

[Camel Joe]

What and just give it away? You members of the "collective" crowd scare me. Without profit or at least the potential for it we are left at the mercy of "artists". That isn't someplace I can say I would ever want to be. How can you expect to attract venture capital for the next exponential leap in technology through profitless avenues?

[justlurking]

But the article praises Linux for doing nothing more than copying someone elses code.

That's not what they said, and neither did I -- I used the word derived. I was simply discrediting your subtle hint that it might be "stolen".

In actuality, the BSD code in question has been found to have several significant bugs in it over the years, and it has continued to evolve. While some of the OSs that used it took a while to be fixed, the open source kernels typically had a patch available within days. Network code was never my specialty, so I don't know if any of it still bears any resemblance to the original.

So it may not be stolen, but Linux still runs that risk and they do have a good point that Linux has matured extremely quickly since IBM entered the fray. It matured quickly compared to other OSS and Closed source software.

IBM has been a contributor, but they are hardly the "reason" that Linux has matured quickly. There are literally thousands of contributors, and the number continues to grow. What has really happened is they reached "critical mass" a few years ago and became a real contender instead of an interesting exercise in world-wide cooperative effort.

Other then subjective reasoning, what facts can you give me that would show me otherwise?

If you want facts, this article doesn't have them. I've used automated code analyzers in the past, and have found they typically have a very high false positive rate. I've used one on another Unix derivative (OSF/Mach), spending a great deal of time cleaning up code and made it easier to maintain/understand, but only found one or two "real" bugs out of about a thousand "detected".

The only facts that would convince me either way would be a side-by-side test: similar applications, similar workloads, similar hardware. Over time, one would get a better idea about reliability. Some of my clients are taking exactly this approach, but it will be a while before the trend becomes clear.