That they did. "All bugs are shallow" means, that once a
potential bug is identified, it will be resolved very quickly.
This happened with the CHECKER reports. False positives
were immediately identified as such, real bugs were fixed
almost in real time. Where did you see the scheme breaking
down?
Because the bugs should have been found without the tool?
Nobody ever claimed the Linux kernel was bug free. The
CHECKER people found some of the bugs still in the kernel.
Without a comparison one cannot assess whether the bug rate
was higher or lower than the average in complex software
systems.
My impression is, that most of the bugs identified where in
well contained subsystems, e.g. drivers or individual file
systems. These subsystems are somewhat special. Though they
are part of the kernel tree, most are only of interest for a
subset of all Linux users. That's why they tend to get less
testing and less eye balls. BTW, MS claims that the same is
true for Windows. Most bugs are said to be in external drivers.
So, overall I think your arguments are flawed.
Regards
Joerg
--- David Konerding <dek_ml@konerding.com> wrote:
> No, the CHECKER people themselves didn't find any bugs. They wrote a
> clever
> analyzer
> that finds error patterns (actually, just patterns) and submitted them.
> Some
> false positives, but worse,
> an uncountable number of false negatives and as-yet-unknown error
> patterns.
> That's not "a lot of eyes", it's a few brains and a fast computer. I'm
> not
> saying that's a *bad* thing but I certainly don't think it's an example
> of
> "lots of eyes".
=====
--
Regards
Joerg
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/