MS Office on Linux 14816
MS Office on Linux 14818
billwg poked his little head through the XP firewall and said: Yes, you will. Why? Because people are out there *using* your software, subjecting it to permutations of...
MS Office on Linux 14817
Wait, whoa whoa whoa. Where do you see *either* cite being "inconsistent with itself"? Two *different* companies with access to both open and closed-source code...
While this seems to bear out the claim, the first cite says:
Key Linux developers can now use the same tools that many of the world's largest commercial IT vendors have integrated into their software development process," said Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity. "Our findings show that Linux contains 0.17 bugs per thousand lines of code, which is an extremely low defect rate and is evidence of the strong security of Linux. Many security holes in software are the result of software bugs that can be eliminated with good programming processes."
Now this seems to say that linux developers can NOW use the same tools that have been used for some time by "commercial IT vendors". Somehow this doesn't gibe with being "cleaner". But the plot gains some mystery when the one cite reports:
"Commercial software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every thousand lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This is equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code. "
And then the next cite reports:
"The spread of defects in commercial software actually ranges from below 0.36 defects per KLOC up to over 0.71 defects per KLOC. These figures are based on the 200 most recent inspections, so you can see the significance of such a low count. "
So what are we to believe? 20-30 per KLOC or .36 to .71 per KLOC? Somebody isn't communicating here. It seems that if you are not willing to believe a big lie, they will try you on a smaller one.