Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : What do you guys make of this..?


Vaseline
03-08-2004, 10:06 AM
Stephen R. Schach
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, U.S.A.

We present the results of three research projects in empirical open-source software engineering.

First, we consider Linus’s Law (“Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”), named in honor of Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux operating system. We show that Linus’s Law does not hold for Mozilla, Gnome, or Apache. On the contrary, between 70 and 90 percent of faults in the versions we examined were corrected by the members of the small core group (the inner circle of software developers), rather than by the “eyeballs” of the hundreds of thousands of worldwide users who have downloaded the software.

Second, we give a new categorization of common coupling within the context of software product lines, and use it to show that Linux will become extremely hard to maintain in the future.

Third, in 1978, Lientz, Swanson, and Tomkins (“LST”) published data that seemed to demonstrate that less than 20% of maintenance is performed in order to correct a defect. However, when we examined 60 versions of the Linux kernel and 15 versions of GCC, we found that over 50% of the maintenance was corrective in nature. We also query the validity of the original LST data.

An advertisement for a talk on my university campus.

root.veg
03-08-2004, 10:19 AM
Cool! Sounds interesting. When is it?

Is it a university event, and if so could I get in without being a student?

I quite like the idea of considering the maintainability of linux in the future.

Even if the guy starts talking garbage, it will probably worth it just to ask questions and criticise (constructively of course :) )

mrBen
03-08-2004, 10:54 AM
Some suggested responses:

1. Linus' Law still applies - it just happens that the majority of bugs are fixed by those who spend the most time looking at the code - the 'inner core' - but this is, in many ways, an exception to prove the rule. The phrase comes from The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and esr provides his own proof of the concept within the essay.

2. I would like to see their proofs; ultimately the question is not 'will Linux become hard to maintain' but rather 'will Linux remain easier to maintain that its closed source cousins?'

3. Looking at 2 extremely complex pieces of software does not consitute anything like proof in this area. Why not look at part of KDE, or Firefox, or maybe something less complicated. In addition to being complex, Linux and GCC are so widely used, that making significant changes is very hard to accomplish satisfactorily.

Rommani
03-08-2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by mrBen

2. I would like to see their proofs; ultimately the question is not 'will Linux become hard to maintain' but rather 'will Linux remain easier to maintain that its closed source cousins?'

I think they mean the monolith nature of the kernel.

mrBen
03-08-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Rommani
I think they mean the monolith nature of the kernel.

Ah. I see. Well, given that, AFAIK, there is not yet a decent, working microkernel kernel, I find this hard to debate seriously.

Vaseline
03-08-2004, 01:56 PM
Date: Thursday 11th March, 2004
Time: 12.00pm.
Venue: Room CSc114, School of Computing & Mathematics, Keele University

If you are intending to travel a long distance to attend this seminar it is advisable to ring the School, on (01782) 583075, on the day before the seminar to check details.

root.veg
03-09-2004, 05:37 AM
Ack! gotta be at work then. Fancy summarising the talk and posting back? :)

Vaseline
03-09-2004, 07:49 AM
Hmm..

I'm supposed to be in a neuroscience class, but I'm tempted. :)

Apparently it's no heckling. :)

EnigmaOne
03-09-2004, 12:36 PM
1 - MrBen already expressed my take on the proposition.

2 - A new categorization used to support a shakey argument? I'm already suspicious. I agree that there had better be not a single shadow of logical fallacy in their proofs.

3 - My reaction is that the structure of the proposition assumes a static relationship between code maintenance time and unique defects corrected over time. There may be some fundamental issues with definitions here.

I'm sorry that I cannot attend and ask some very pointed questions of the principal investigators involved.