Re: The stability crisis

Chuck Lever (cel@monkey.org)
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:49:16 -0400 (EDT)


On 2 Jul 1999, Florian Weimer wrote:
> OTOH, I like the current situation a lot. The Linux kernel is the only
> large software project I know of which doesn't use classical debugging
> tools, and Linus even said once he thinks that this has a positive
> impact on the quality of bug fixes (i.e. only the person who fully
> understands the bug can fix it, nothing like `oh dear, we have a null
> pointer dereference here, so check for the null pointer and do nothing
> in this case').

IMHO that idea is really "code" for elitism. (no offense to you Florian,
i've seen this idea expressed many times on this list).

yes, the defect rate of Linux is remarkable considering there are few
debugging tools available. but i think the reason it is so low is because
the lack of debugging tools *prevents* people from getting involved and
fixing problems, so *only* the experts can fix problems. preventing a
flood of fixes and modifications helps keep the change rate lower, and
limits the amount of parallel work that can proceed on the kernel. but
there is still a control issue here, whether overt or not.

attributing the high quality of fixes to lack of debugging tools does a
disservice to the level of expertise of those working on Linux, and to
Linus' ability to recognize and apply a good fix when he sees it. it
would be hard for anyone to break out a single reason why Linux bug fixes
are the way they are.

- Chuck Lever

--
corporate:	<chuckl@netscape.com>
personal:	<chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>

The Linux Scalability project: http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux-scalability/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/