Report: Open source software quality is better than proprietary software

One would think that running this test against, say, the Linux kernel source, would provide a list of questionable elements.

One might then provide a flurry of little patches to correct the questionable elements, by initializing variables, and such other.

Maybe there is some reason why this has not been done?

I thought I had read (elsewhere) that they've been using Coverity on the kernel for quite some time.

It might be considered logical, were such tools being used, that the perceived error rate would be substantially lower by now, no?

Well, that's assuming the results from using the tool were actually, you know, analyzed and applied.

What perceived error rate? Can you point to any real errors or bugs in the kernel that have affected you personally? The kernel is probably the most bug-free large FOSS project out there, and the performance keeps getting better and better.

Unfortunately, a lot of the software that rides on top of the kernel (namely various desktop environments) can't make this claim at all, and is full of bugs and problems.

@Khamul, the perception doesn't have to be on the part of the end-user. It also be on the part of someone doing a code review, someone doing hardware testing, or someone reading a Coverity analysis.

Ok, but that still doesn't answer the question. I haven't read anything lately that alleges any significant error rate in the kernel.

"I haven't read anything lately that alleges any significant error rate in the kernel."

Other than the article this thread is attached to?

As for "performance", the Phoronix benchmarks show regressions all the time. That's not to say that on balance the things that take longer because they are abstracted to work across multiple hardware platforms are worth the price for Linux's legendary variety of supported hardware.