Amanda Open Source project has zero outstanding bugs

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Thirsty Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-03-18-008-26-OS-CY-DV
    >
    > Whaddyaknow! See - it *can* be done! :eek:)
    >
    >
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >
    > --
    > Free Open Source software - it's not just about better code, as important
    > as
    > that is. It's about better values, higher ethics.
    >


    "Open source developers have immense pride in the quality of the work"

    However it looks like they don't do a thing about fixing bugs until a third
    party points them out, so much for that "many eyes" bullshit. Given that
    it's extremely unlikely that Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, Symantec, CA etc
    provided Coverity with any closed source code to scan do you think that this
    "analysis" might be little more than an academic PR exercise ?

    By the way, is this Amanda project which has 11 outstanding bugs, 6 of which
    are over 30 days old, the same as the one quoted in the article as being
    bug-free ? http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=120&atid=100120 . Oh
    dear...

    You go Linux Fan Boy Numero Uno
     
    Thirsty, Mar 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Enkidu Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-03-18-008-26-OS-CY-DV
    >
    >
    > Whaddyaknow! See - it *can* be done! :eek:)
    >

    What they *actually* say is "As it currently stands, there are 0
    outstanding bugs detected by the Coverity scan and Amanda is the most
    defect free open source project currently being evaluated by Coverity."

    Note that they don't say that there are zero bugs. They say that there
    are no bugs detected by the Coverity scan. That's a lot different.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Mar 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:11:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    > Note that they don't say that there are zero bugs. They say that there
    > are no bugs detected by the Coverity scan. That's a lot different.


    Is it? Your assumption is that there are bugs in it. ;-)
     
    Gordon, Mar 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:45:11 +1200, Thirsty wrote:

    > "Open source developers have immense pride in the quality of the work"
    >
    > However it looks like they don't do a thing about fixing bugs until a third
    > party points them out, so much for that "many eyes" bullshit.


    That is the whole point. How do you fix something you do not know is
    there, you need one of those many eyes to see the bug hiding in the
    source code.

    Note, we need the code, and we need many people to look at it.

    With the code bugs are found, otherwise it just holes to be exploited.
     
    Gordon, Mar 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    SchoolTech Guest

    SchoolTech, Mar 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Enkidu Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:11:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Note that they don't say that there are zero bugs. They say that there
    >>are no bugs detected by the Coverity scan. That's a lot different.

    >
    >
    > Is it? Your assumption is that there are bugs in it. ;-)
    >

    I'm 100% certain that there are currently unknown bugs in it.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Mar 19, 2006
    #7
  8. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    AD. Guest

    Which NASA commercial code is that?

    ShuttleOS 2003 Enterprise Edition?
     
    AD., Mar 20, 2006
    #8
  9. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Peter S Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-03-18-008-26-OS-CY-DV
    >
    > Whaddyaknow! See - it *can* be done! :eek:)
    >
    >
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >


    Ha!!!!!!!

    You've obviously never coded a darned thing. You just read propaganda.

    What a naive joke.

    Bugs always exist in software. Bugs are not known. Bugs are by definition
    unknown. Bugs are introduced outside the control of the software - e.g
    operating system changes, interoperability problems with other software.
    Bugs are introduced by changes in standards. It might be acceptable to do
    something one way now, but what is acceptable changes and it becomes a bug.

    Bugs are not black and white. They are gray.

    I'm still laughing at you.
     
    Peter S, Mar 20, 2006
    #9
  10. Hi there,

    Enkidu wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:11:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Note that they don't say that there are zero bugs. They say that
    >>> there are no bugs detected by the Coverity scan. That's a lot different.

    >>
    >> Is it? Your assumption is that there are bugs in it. ;-)
    >>

    > I'm 100% certain that there are currently unknown bugs in it.


    I personally prefer to say "currently it is unknown if there are
    bugs in it"...

    Certainty is only what is known for real...if we don't know for
    real then it is uncertain...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Mar 21, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <441fa85e$>, Chris Wilkinson <> wrote:
    >Hi there,
    >Enkidu wrote:
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:11:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>>> Note that they don't say that there are zero bugs. They say that
    >>>> there are no bugs detected by the Coverity scan. That's a lot different.
    >>>
    >>> Is it? Your assumption is that there are bugs in it. ;-)
    >>>

    >> I'm 100% certain that there are currently unknown bugs in it.

    >
    >I personally prefer to say "currently it is unknown if there are
    >bugs in it"...
    >
    >Certainty is only what is known for real...if we don't know for
    >real then it is uncertain...


    "THere is always at least one more bug". It's some kind of law and applies
    to ... well ... prety much anything. :)
    What we hope is that it is not important enough for anyone to notice :)



    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Mar 22, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ganesh J. Acharya
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    939
    pcbutts1
    Jul 17, 2005
  2. Jason

    Bugs and Bugs...get rid of them

    Jason, Jan 31, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    487
    Hellish
    Jan 31, 2006
  3. Cylon 69

    HOW CAN YOU THINK AMANDA TAPPING IS FAT?? (MORE PICS)

    Cylon 69, Jul 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    23,112
  4. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
  5. Patrick Dunford
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    525
Loading...

Share This Page