Slashdot Mirror


Another Look At Mozilla's BugFix Rate

An anonymous reader writes "Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog has published the results of a look back at three years worth of critical patches from Mozilla, and found that Mozilla typically ships updates for critical flaws in about three weeks, though in more than a third of the cases it pushed out a fix in ten days or less. The data comes just a few weeks after The Post published data from a similar study that found Microsoft averaged 130+ days to fix critical flaws. Slashdot also covered that study in a previous post."

3 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. "from the must-go-faster dept." by Cutriss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny. IMHO, the speed of the browser peaked a long time ago (0.8 IIRC), and now it's just getting progressively slower over time.

    They might be fixing critical security bugs, but they certainly don't seem to be fixing memleaks and such.

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  2. MS Release Cycle by Azarael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fairness, everything that I've read about MS's patch cycle indicates that it is a pretty huge undertaking. Joel from http://joelonsoftware.com/ is always going on about have every single code fix/feature addition has to go through a whole bunch of people (several testers, documentation team, etc) before it can be released. If anything maybe Microsoft is a bit too thorough with their patches, in some ways at least.

  3. Not really fair... by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Skimming through the previous Slashdot story, it looks like the Microsoft vulnerabilities covered both the OS and IE, not just IE. Mozzilla, afaik, only does the browsing and mail programs.

    Granted, that's no small task, but it still isn't on the level of fixing an O.S., in my opinion. It's like comparing apples and pumpkins.

    It would be better to compare Windows patch release time with Linux patch release time, which I believe has been done before (and then covered on Slashdot- Linux probably had the shorter time.)

    Regardless, how much does market share factor into this? With Linux, if a patch breaks a program, most people can just shrug it off and rewrite the program to work with the patch. So mass testing isn't as big of an issue. With Windows, if a patch breaks a program, a user doesn't have a lot they can do except to sit there and weep until Company X releases their own patch or next version.