<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br><div><div>On 24 Sep 2009, at 15:21, Robert Ladyman wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="mailto:mickey.mouse@disney.com">mickey.mouse@disney.com</a> (Position: Cartoon Character) registered for me and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">allowed me to look at his copy. He told me that the use "Static Analyis" of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">defect density (so that they can compare projects) in lines of code and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">compare a scan of a project at one time with later scans. Their false positive<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(for defects) is about 14%. Mickey also said that the report gave roughly one<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">defect per 3333 lines (0.3 near enough) but now it's down to one per 4000<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">lines (0.25).</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div> </blockquote><br></div><div>It was this comment on slashdot (and a few other sites covering the story) that made me ask the question</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-size: 13px; ">In fact, the analysis demonstrated that proprietary code is, on average, more than five times less buggy. On the other hand, the open-source software was found to be of greater average overall quality."</span></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/07/173255&tid=683">http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/07/173255&tid=683</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br></div><div>This separates the bugs from the quality (otherwise it would be a contradiction) - so what is "quality"? I downloaded the report to have a look, and it seems that basically, for Coverity, quality == less bugs.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Iain</div><br></body></html>