Linux: The Gold Standard of Code
"Is Linux code the 'benchmark of quality'? Well, it is very good, no doubt about that," said Google+ blogger Brett Legree. "The main take-away point from the study should be that open source software, including Linux, is on par with proprietary software from a quality perspective. So, Linux code could be considered a benchmark of quality -- it is as good as anything else out there."
May 16, 2013 5:00 AM PT
There are few things more gratifying to those of us here in the Linux blogosphere than seeing the many and varied virtues of our favorite operating system get officially recognized.
It happens with increasing regularity these days, of course -- after all, there are so very many virtues to consider -- but recently an example emerged that has been warming FOSS fans' hearts ever since.
"Linux code is the 'benchmark of quality,' study concludes" is the headline that started the ball rolling down at the blogosphere's Broken Windows Lounge, where toast after toast has rung out in Linux's name as a result.
'The Right Way to Do IT'
It's time to celebrate Linux's latest success -- not that it comes as any great surprise.
"Of course Linux's code quality is excellent," began blogger Robert Pogson, for example. "Developing FLOSS cooperatively among a wide array of businesses, OEMs, retailers, organizations, classes of computers and end-users is the right way to do IT.
"It brings in more points of view, more insight, more knowledge and skill, re-uses good code, and gets more people working in parallel -- just what is needed to make great software," Pogson added.
In Other News: 'Water Is Wet'
"Of course, this comes as no surprise to those of us that use Linux day in and day out both personally and professionally," agreed Linux Rants blogger Mike Stone.
"Further, to those of us that have both experience with Linux personally and professionally and Windows personally and professionally, this study ranks right up there with those that have determined the sky is blue and that water is wet," Stone added.
"Only the most blind followers of Redmond's poster child would ever dispute this study, but then I guess there are still those that believe the Earth is flat," he pointed out.
'This Should Not Surprise Anyone'
"I think this is something we have been saying for a long time, at least since 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar,'" concurred Google+ blogger Kevin O'Brien.
"Many eyeballs make bugs shallow, and open code is more perfectible," O'Brien added. "This should not surprise anyone."
Indeed, "not news to me, but then again we have long passed the point where most of the interesting development needs to happen in userspace," observed consultant and Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack.
'Thorough and Elaborate'
"Is Linux code the 'benchmark of quality'? Well, it is very good, no doubt about that," Google+ blogger Brett Legree told Linux Girl.
Still, Legree chose to take a closer look, downloading the results of the study and then reviewing the document.
"The research performed by Coverity seems to be thorough and fairly elaborate, as the study looked at hundreds of projects from both open source and proprietary code bases," he explained. "The analysis covered code bases of various sizes, and the results were broken down by project size (lines of code) to compare defect densities between open source and proprietary software."
The data presented on pages 9 and 10 of the report, however, highlighted some things Legree found particularly interesting.
'As Good as Anything Else'
"First, the defect density of open source software was on par with proprietary software (per the projects considered by the 2012 study)," he pointed out. "Second, the project size (lines of code) seemed to have different effects on defect density for open source vs. proprietary software."
Specifically, "small open source projects tended to have lower defect densities than proprietary software, but as the lines of code increased, proprietary software defect density dropped whereas it increased for open source projects," he noted.
Still, "the main take-away point from the study should be that open source software, including Linux, is on par with proprietary software from a quality perspective," Legree concluded. "So, Linux code could be considered a benchmark of quality -- it is as good as anything else out there."
'It's the Attitude'
Slashdot blogger hairyfeet didn't see the significance.
"The problem with Linux has NEVER been the quality of the code itself -- that has always been fine, top-notch even," hairyfeet suggested.
Rather, "it's the attitude," he opined. "Nobody talks to anybody else, nobody thinks about anybody else, it's all 'works for me!' while ignoring the fact that if it works on the teeny tiny subset of hardware your typical dev has means exactly jack and squat."
At the end of the day, "nobody other than a handful of geeks care about how pretty or well-written the code is; heck, some of the biggest programs in history were buggy as hell and nobody cared," hairyfeet concluded. "What they care about is, 'Will my software/hardware work and will it keep working when I update?' and nobody seems to care about that part, not a bit."
'Happy Future, GNU/Linux'
Not everyone saw it that way, however.
"FLOSS people work hard, not just for a hobby, but to deliver their best," Google+ blogger Gonzalo Velasco C. told Linux Girl.
"Now, after 20 years of GNU/Linux, with all the modern distributions and the larger number of users (corporate, scientific and home communities), it just became evident," he concluded. "Happy future, GNU/Linux. You deserve all the compliments."