Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debugging in OSS Always Faster

Posted by michael on from the bugging-also-always-faster dept.

dex@ruunat writes "Damien Challet and Yann Le Du of the University of Oxford studied a model of software bug dynamics, which resulted in a paper on cond-mat this morning. In this paper they study the difference in evolution of number of bugs in open and closed source projects. They conclude: 'When the program is written from scratch, the first phase of development is characterized by a fast decline of the number of bugs, followed by a slow phase where most bugs have been fixed, hence, are hard to find'. Another, perhaps surprising conclusion is that debugging in open source projects is always faster than in closed source projects."

2 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Text of article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    So I downloaded mozillabird 1.5 and visted my favourite website. When I pressed enter the window disaperred and a window with a bomb on the side apperead.

    So i went to Tech support and subbmitted bug report #232032 (no link because they banned slashdot).

    Heres the responces i got.

    • RTFM
    • SAFP (send a fucking patch)
    • GBTWN (go back to windows noob)
    • Use lynx
    • WLHCC (whiny luser who can't code)
    • Goat rimmer


    • After about 50 flames i decided to do "rpm -e mozillabird" and went back to using Opera 7 for gnu/hurd, a nicely crafted browser that is worth the $39.
  2. Re:Not very impressed by nathanh · · Score: 3, Flamebait
    As with all statistics, you can make them say whatever you want...

    This is false. An urban myth. Something that people like to say to make themselves sound more knowledgeable than they really are. The reality is that statistics is a mathematical field and it is as rigorous as any other mathematical field.

    The real problem is that people think they understand statistics when they do not. They will claim "statistics say blah" when the statistics say nothing of the sort. The non-mathematical audience blames the statistics instead of their own ignorance.