Linux has fewer Bugs

[llbbl]

http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,66022,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers, the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the programming code of most proprietary software.

The report, set to be released on Tuesday, states that the 2.6 Linux production kernel, shipped with software from Red Hat, Novell and other major Linux software vendors, contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the industry average for commercial enterprise software. Windows XP, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis.

Commercial software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This would be equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code.

[openbsd-flipp]

What would be interesting to see the method they were using to find the bugs. I have this mental picture of some poor grad student reading all these lines of code and trying to manually figure out the bugs in it.

[spankers]

Four year analysis... kernel 2.6 ... 5.7 million lines.

I didn't know the 2.6 series had been around for four years. ;) ...kinda misleading story. My girlfriend is an academic researcher and from her stories I take all studies and associated papers with a grain of salt.

How many other operating system kernels did they have the source code for? Hmmmm. Comparing kernel code to vanilla application code... apples and oranges. Worthless.

[llbbl]

I don't think they are comparing application code right? The 40 million for WinXP is the NT "Kernel" code they are refferring too.

[spankers]

I should have been more clear. I was commenting on the godawful stupidity of the person who wrote the story. The research has nothing to do with comparing kernels. They simply identified bugs in 2.6.9....

http://linuxbugs.coverity.com/linuxbugs.htm

It has nothing to do with comparing relative security in OS kernels. The article has you believing that Linux is more secure than Windows or [your OS here]. Pure rubbish. The team did not do a side by side audit comparing OS's.

And I'll be a pie eyed emu if there is 40 million lines of code in the WinNT KERNEL... maybe in the complete OS.

I really like using Linux and the GNU bits. But I get irked when someone in the press deliberately spreads disinformation. Linux doesn't need the same skewed reporting that Microsoft uses. It can stand on it's own strengths.

[llbbl]

not more secure .. I take away from it that it has less bugs and will run longer and better without coming to a grinding hault. ... I.E. more stable.