{"id":27497,"date":"2014-11-18T19:40:35","date_gmt":"2014-11-19T00:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.opensource.im\/?p=27497"},"modified":"2014-11-18T19:40:35","modified_gmt":"2014-11-19T00:40:35","slug":"open-source-code-contains-fewer-defects-but-theres-a-catch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/open-source-software\/open-source-code-contains-fewer-defects-but-theres-a-catch.php","title":{"rendered":"Open Source Code Contains Fewer Defects, But There&#8217;s a Catch"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>  Research suggests that software developed using open source code  contains fewer defects than that built with proprietary code.<\/p>\n<p>    Open source code is lower quality than proprietary code. At    least, that's how many people now perceive it.  <\/p>\n<p>    Until this year, you could make a persuasive argument that    defects in freely available source code are more likely to be    spotted and fixed promptly than defects in proprietary    software. Then along came Goto    Fail, Heartbleed,    Shellshock    and Poodle.    These four high-profile bugs in open source software weren't    detected and fixed for years, in some cases, despite the code    having been freely available for anyone to inspect.  <\/p>\n<p>    That's been enough to put a question mark back in many people's    minds about the way that open source software is developed --    and whether it's enough to count on someone, somewhere,    analyzing the code and spotting defects. There's a risk that    everyone assumes someone else analyzes the code when, in fact,    no one with the necessary skills is actually doing so. This    calls into question the wisdom of adopting open source software    in the enterprise at all.  <\/p>\n<p>    [ Survey:     Security, Quality Top Companies' Reasons for Using Open    Source ]  <\/p>\n<p>    But proprietary software frequently contains defects, including    security vulnerabilities. Is there any real evidence to suggest    that open source code is better or worse than its closed source    counterpart?  <\/p>\n<p>    The annual     Coverity scan report provides one source of objective    information about the amount of code defects in open source and    proprietary software. The report analyzes the levels of defects    found in software developed using the two different models,    which it runs though its static analysis system.  <\/p>\n<p>    It's important to bear in mind that the scan report only    includes software that's submitted for scanning; in a sense,    this is a self-selected sample. That said, it turns out that    the defect density -- the number of bugs per 1,000 lines of    code -- of open source and proprietary software are broadly    similar.  <\/p>\n<p>    In fact, the most recent report (2013) found open source    software written in C and C++ to have a lower defect density    than proprietary code. The average defect density across    projects of all sizes was 0.59 for open source, and 0.72 for    proprietary software.  <\/p>\n<p>    Applications with few lines of code had, in general, lower    defect densities than larger ones, although large apps with    more than 1 million lines of code actually had a lower density    than some medium-sized apps.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read more:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.cio.com.au\/article\/559913\/open-source-code-contains-fewer-defects-there-catch\/?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=taxonomyfeed\/RK=0\/RS=2luQIDtFUIuHLlec.NbbFR9AcTQ-\" title=\"Open Source Code Contains Fewer Defects, But There's a Catch\">Open Source Code Contains Fewer Defects, But There's a Catch<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Research suggests that software developed using open source code contains fewer defects than that built with proprietary code. Open source code is lower quality than proprietary code. At least, that's how many people now perceive it. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open-source-software"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27497"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}