Forgot your password?

Code Quality: Open Source vs. Proprietary 21

Posted by Soulskill
from the put-your-money-where-your-code-is dept.
just_another_sean sends this followup to yesterday's discussion about the quality of open source code compared to proprietary code. Every year, Coverity scans large quantities of code and evaluates it for defects. They've just released their latest report, and the findings were good news for open source. From the article: "The report details the analysis of 750 million lines of open source software code through the Coverity Scan service and commercial usage of the Coverity Development Testing Platform, the largest sample size that the report has studied to date. A few key points: Open source code quality surpasses proprietary code quality in C/C++ projects. Linux continues to be a benchmark for open source quality. C/C++ developers fixed more high-impact defects. Analysis found that developers contributing to open source Java projects are not fixing as many high-impact defects as developers contributing to open source C/C++ projects."

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 642

by ceoyoyo (#46774163) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Except that the "impossible" happens every day outside the US. Actually, IIRC, even in the US there are states that frequently have independents, third parties or non-partisan candidates in their legislatures, aren't there? Local governments may be even more diverse.

There seems to be something peculiar about either the US federal system, the American people, or both.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 642

by ceoyoyo (#46774049) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

One example? Really? I have no trouble believing that the powers in the US are unhealthily interested in maintaining those powers, but one example (and kind of an iffy one at that) doesn't mean much. It's also irrelevant to the point: the reason there aren't third parties in the US (and the reason the two ruling parties get away with things they shouldn't) is that Americans don't vote for third parties.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1102

by Zak3056 (#46773681) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

You're essentially claiming that both you and your AR-15 are at least as accurate as the gold medalist in the 50m rifle at the 2012 summer games was while firing whatever piece of art was crafted for him by Anschutz. You can imagine how one might be incredulous in the face of this claim. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a valid response.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1102

by noh8rz10 (#46773029) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

here's the deal. california cities use very little water. 80% of the water in this state is used by agriculture. only 10% by people. An a large part of the agriculture water is used to grow stupid crops, like rice or feed for chinese cows. if farmers in california grew climate appropriate crops then everybody whould have enough water.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1102

by hey! (#46772927) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

It's not a "re-examination". It's a butchering.

You say that like it's necessarily a bad thing.

We've got to stop acting as if the Founding Fathers were like Moses descending from Mount Sinai with the Constitution chiseled on a couple of stone tablets. They were brilliant, enlightened men for their day, but the Constitution is not a document of divine inerrancy.

The US Constitution is the COBOL of constitutions. Yes, it was a tremendous intellectual innovation for its time. Yes, it is still being used successfully today. But nobody *today* would write a constitution that way, *even if their intent was exactly the same* as the founders.

For one thing it's full of confusingly pointless ("To promote the Progress of Science") and hoplessly vague ("securing for *limited times*") phraseology that leaves courts wondering exactly what the framers meant, or whether they were just pointlessly editorializing ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State").

It's also helplessly out of date. The Constitution was drafted before the existence of mass media and advertising; before photography even. It was the appearance of photography in newspapers that woke people up to the idea that they might have privacy rights that were being threatened. A Constitution written in 1900 would almost certainly have clauses explicitly recognizing a right to individual privacy and empowering the government to protect that right. A Constitution written in 2000 would almost certainly have clauses restricting the government from violating individual privacy.

And then there is slavery, an outright *evil* which is enshrined in the founder's version of the Constitution. That alone should disqualify any claim they may have had to superhuman morality.

So if we take it as given that the US Constitution is not divinely ordained, it's not necessarily a bad thing that the current generation should choose to butcher what the founders established. Would you re-institute slavery? Allow *states* to deprive citizens of liberty and property without due process? Eliminate direct election of senators?

So it's perfectly reasonable to butcher anything in the Constitution when you're proposing an *amendment* to the Constitution. That's the whole point. We should think for ourselves. In doing so, we're actually carrying on the work the framers themselves were doing. Every generation should learn from its predecessors, but think for itself.

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 1) 326

by noh8rz10 (#46772813) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

the availability of housing in mountain view has exactly zero impact on the availability of housing in SF. SF is a hip urban city while Mtn View is a suburban community. If you're priced out of housing in mtn view then you're definitely not moving to SF. If you can afford to live in SF, then you live there because you want to and not because you couldn't find a place in mtn view.

SF does not feel the ripple from mountain view!!!!! stop being illogical!!!!! you're saying that if the price of a honda accord went up $2k it would drive people to buy a lexus.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne