kaufmanmoore writes, "Companies and governments are looking to alternatives to expensive radars and road sensors to track traffic jams. Two Atlanta-based companies are aiming to use data from wireless carriers to mark how fast phones are moving and overlaying that with maps to calculate traffic conditions. One of the companies, AirStage, has already partnered with Sprint-Nextel and the Georgia DOT to cover Atlanta's notorious traffic. The plans raise obvious privacy concerns over the usage of the data of your cell phone's location and the accuracy of this data." From the article: "[The] systems rely on wireless companies allowing them to process the data from their towers that calculate the position of each phone about twice a second when it's being used and once every 30 seconds when it's not. [One company's technology] can track vehicles to within 330 feet without using Global Positioning System satellites. Its software is designed to weed out the difference between pedestrians and drivers, then crunch it into detailed color-coded maps that show average speeds along roadways."
This is the usual completely meaningless accounting, with a myriad of methodological flaws. You cannot make a general statement about bugginess of open-source vs. closed-source code. There are just too many variables to conduct a statistically meaningful study. The reason why open source code is better bug-wise is very simple: the user of the code can fix the bugs. As a developer, I hate to depend on closed-source code. Why? Because *every* moderately large code, open or closed, has bugs, and they invariably show up at some point. I much rather go fix the issue myself that wait for some random amount of time (including forever) for someone else to fix the bug for me.