Slashdot Mirror
Software Code Quality Of Apache Analyzed
fruey writes "Following Reasoning's February analysis of the Linux TCP/IP stack (putting it ahead of many commercial implementations for it's low error density), they recently pitted Apache 2.1 source code against commercial web server offerings, although they don't say which. Apparently, Apache is close, but no cigar..."
Why don't they fix them? It seems almost paradoxical, if you find .53 errors per thousands lines of code and fix them, then you'll have 0 errors. But since we can only fix errors we can detect, we only detect errors we can fix. Ok, it's too early on a Monday morning...
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Just because Open-Source coders can't spell when they insert comments doesn't mean that they can't write good code!
Why does it seem a bit odd to be testing software quality with other software? I wonder if they ran their own software through its own program, but then that gets kinda weird when a program starts noticing errors about itself... maybe it'd get depressed and start ranting at the creator on how they should have taken better care of it... ok, I need more sleep
...then why is it their webserver? :)
Of course it is Apache 1.3.23...
I compared this to my 'other' server, for now unnammed.
My 'other' server brought me coffee, 2 pieces toast, 2 eggs OVER EASY, 4 strips of bacon, *and* Smucker's Grape Jelly with nary a mistep, or hesitation. This other server smiled, asked how my wife was, and brought me a new fork when I dropped my first one.
Congratulations, Gloria! You win the 'great server' award!
This article isn't worth the 2 dollar tip.
Why doesn't Reasoning fill the niche, and code a completely error free web server? They know other peoples mistakes, so they should know how to code an error free one.
Well, seriously, I wouldn't put much in their obvious estimation.
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
My general rule is that if someone is quoting statictics to you, they are lying. At least on average. :)
39% of Slashdot readers already know that.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
That reminds me of an old (early 1980's) product named BILF (Basic Infinite Loop Finder). It was supposed to be run against BASIC source code and it would find all infinite loops in the code, or so the vendor claimed.
A magazine reviewed the product. In their review they included a formal mathematical proof that such a program could never work. The vendor responded to the proof by saying that they would fix that problem in the next release!