Hi John,

It all depends on the software you are talking about:

Actually, as long as open source software (OSS) depends on the community it can become better than proprietary software when a critical number of contributors is reached.
It does not depends whether the software is OSS or proprietary, it depends on how many skilled programmers will be able to contribute. It is known as the Linus law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs will shallow".
In a nutshell, the strength of the OSS community is the number of people contributing, and this is allowed by the fact that its open but does not only depends on this.

As an example, softwares like openoffice or apache are very good, because many people contribute. And a many people contribute to it because it is useful for them, they use these programs.
Some programs just could not be good OSS because they wouldn't attract so many contributors and users.

Feel free to contact me if you need more info

Regards

Julien

posted July 10, 2007

At least theoretically there should be lesser bugs in open source applications, as more developers look at the source and more users use the applications (and so more bugs are detected and can get fixed).

posted July 10, 2007

It's a popular theory that many eyes make all bugs shallow. While it may be true, that's not the main benefit of open source wrt bugfixing.

Open source apps do tend to be small, focused projects with little room for featuritis to creep in. Those that aren't (like, say, OpenOffice) tend to be just as byzantinely convoluted, slow-moving and buggy as their closed-source counterparts.

However, anyone with the skills needed can debug an open source app, whereas a closed-source one can be debugged reliably only by its owner.

From this POV, open source is less risky (i.e. less costly), because you're not tied to one provider (the software manufacturer) for a critical service (bugfixing).

posted July 10, 2007

Can we consider that for a given application one will find fewer bugs in open source than in a branded proprietary application?

Simple Answer. No, one cannot consider that fewer bugs will be found in open source than in a branded proprietary application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Open Source Definition
Submitted by Ken Coar on Fri, 2006-07-07 15:49. ::

Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The
distribution terms of open-source software must comply with
the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several
different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a
product is not distributed with source code, there must be a
well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more
than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via
the Internet without charge. The source code must be the
preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.
Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate
forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not
allowed.

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form only if the license allows the distribution
of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit
distribution of software built from modified source code. The
license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group
of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may
not restrict the program from being used in a business, or
from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom
the program is redistributed without the need for execution of
an additional license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
program's being part of a particular software distribution.
If the program is extracted from that distribution and used
or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all
parties to whom the program is redistributed should
have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction
with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that
is distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
the license must not insist that all other programs distributed
on the same medium must be open-source software.

*10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual
technology or style of interface.
------------------------------------------------------

Links:

• http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

posted July 10, 2007

I test proprietary software for the industry: developers tend to fix the bugs. I also test free open software for the community: developers tend to discard the bugs.

Testing is not only about finding bugs. There should be a clear assessment for every problem, and very important, a business model that can be checked against the priorities, core functions of the software, marketing and a managed budget.

Not finding/fixing a bug in open source means a poorer user experience. In case or proprietary software, not fixing a bug means loosing customers and suffering the brand degradation.

posted July 10, 2007

I agree with all previous statements, mostly regarding the support side of an OSS. I would add that you find more passionnate guys behind the code (which BTW does not mean in every cases you will have the best stability), in Open Source developpement you also have a dimension of 'art coding' that is lacking in many proprietary code, subject to commercial release date pressure.

The choice would depend on the size/complexity/required availability of the application you want to use, and nobody would give you a strong yes or no on your question without knowing the context, nor the product itself, which you may not want to give here..

I would just add that if you have a team with good dev skills on your side, then the fact that you have the source code helps a lot from the documentation point of view.
For example, if you take the latest debian kernel, they have a very good source code documentation - if not the best, if the 'readable' doc lacks some points, then in the facts you are still able to find out how it really works.

You also can see that every new tech projects (java) are for most of them using OSS products all linked together, they think of the downside of the support can be handled by them if there are no response from the community.

good luck.

here an exercpt from wikipedia about OSS business model :
"There are a number of commonly recognized barriers to the adoption of open source software by enterprises. These barriers include licenses that are viral, lack of formal support and training, the velocity of change, and a lack of a long term roadmap. The majority of these barriers are risk-related. Many business models exist around open source software to provide a 'whole product' to help reduce these risks. The 'whole product' typically includes support, professional services, training, certification, partner programs, references and use cases. These business models range from 'services only' organisations that do not participate in the development of the software to models where the majority of the software is created by full-time committers that are employed by a central organization. These business models have come into existance recently and their operation is not commonly understood. One model that has been developed to explain this is the Bee Keeper Model.".

Links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

posted July 10, 2007

I'm afraid that there are as many bugs in Open Source as there is in any other proprietary Application

As an experienced tester I have worked on both variations and have found little difference in bug counts, the issue you have with non-Open source is that if you do not have a solid Support contract with a decent SLA then you will be waiting around for a new patch or version to be released by the manufacturer.
Open source software can and often does have patches to fix serious issues reasonably quickly depending on the size of the open source project. However if a fix is not immediately available then the support FAQs and Forums will normally contain a thread with a workaround.
the other advantage of Open Source is the larger body of experts that can help achieve a solution to any particular quality issues

Links:

• http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?ObjectId=6535&Function=DETAILBROWSE...

posted July 10, 2007

My answer would be "no".

Even though I'm all in favor of open source tech, it all comes down to support. In my opinion you pay a fee for software to get support. Open source products are generally overall better as more clever people work on it, yet getting support on the terms that appeal to you is virtually non-existant in the OSS community- other than posting your problem on a newsgroup whilst having your fingers crossed.

Howerver, in my experience, these forum solutions are most of the time accurate and fast, yet, it is the 'fingers crossed' aspect that most enterprises prefer to live without.

posted July 10, 2007

As with all software development it is not the use of the tools that makes the product but the methodologies deployed by the vendor to the product lifecycle management i.e specification, design build and testing. Typically open source allows speed of development and therefore reduction in time to market of a product. It doesn't denote higher quality in its own right!

posted July 10, 2007

The less people on a project, the smaller the software and the better the quality control process, the less bugs there will be.

I don't think that, generally speaking, proporietary nor open sourced solutions differ in any of these respects.

The only difference I see is that open source allows you to fix annoying bugs by yourself. This is a great asset... if you can afford it.

- Yves

posted July 10, 2007

That's is a very general question that calls for a general answer.

For a given application, the more qualified people and qualified hours of work they do eliminating bugs, the less there are.

It is easy to find open source software applications (eg. Apache, OpenOffice) with large, qualified communities -- likewise it is evident that many commercial applications are made by relatively small companies that cannot provide enough qualified work. The remaining two extremes -- small and/or unqualified open source projects and large and/or qualified commercial projects -- are also easily found.

So the short general answer to your general question is: no.

posted July 10, 2007

A complex question, with no general answer that applies in all cases.

One important distinction is that with many (not all!) Open Source software (no, not OSS - in my telecoms world OSS is something else) it is easier for normal users to submit information about bugs. In effect, all users may be considered beta testers. In the commercial world of proprietary software, bug reports from the user community are usually not welcome unless they have support contracts.

My own experience of Open Source software has been very good. For example:

Linux vs. Windows - Windows has many more problems with memory leaks, with reliably starting services & applications on boot or login, and with crashes. Leaving Windows running for weeks on end is usually a no-no.

OpenOffice vs. MS-Office - OpenOffice is much less likely to crash. I have often had to use OpenOffice to repair a damaged Word document that caused Word to crash repeatedly.

Gtk-Gnutella vs. Limewire - Try to download too many files at once, or leave it running too long, and Limewire is likely to crash, and not be able to restart the partially complete downloads when you restart it. No such problem with Gtk-Gnutella.

Access vs. MySql - I have never had crashes with Access, but it is so slow!

Outlook vs. Thunderbird - My Outlook at work (administered by professionals) has problems almost every day, but I have never had a problem with Thunderbird. I love Outlook's integration of email & calendar, but I just wish it would work reliably.

I have a Linux machine at home. It runs ONLY Open Source software. It is completely reliable. The only bugs I have experienced on the system were with proprietary driver software (now discarded).

posted July 10, 2007

It depends on the number of contributors in the FLOSS project. The same for the number of employees working on your proprietary application.

Google about the "Cathedral and Bazaar". It is very objective. Also, if you're working with any FLOSS projects you probably know the name of the some popular free softwares.

Go to their websites and check their communities forums. You'll be surprised to see how well organized they are.

Links:

• http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
• http://www.webyes.com.br
• http://www.telematicsfreedom.org

posted July 10, 2007

At this stage there is no real evidence either way for quality of open source vs commerical, and there are far more important factors as pointed out above (such as size/complexity of the software, maturity of the developers, availability of support, etc).

The "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" thesis comes from Eric S. Raymonds' "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar), but it should be pointed out that the argument provided is mostly theoretical, only based on annecdotal evidence. As has been pointed out by writers such as Robert Glass (see, for example, "Is open source software more reliable?" in The Software Practioner), empirical studies are necessary to validate such arguments.

For one such study moving in the right direction, see L. Zhao and S. Elbaum's, "Quality Assurance under the Open Source Development Model" (2003), which discusses some of the benefits and flaws of the quality process for open source software. Even that paper, however, concludes "further studies are necessary to provide additional empirical evidence to support the claims of open source promoters, to put those claims into the proper context, or to just contradict those claims.".

posted July 10, 2007

It all comes down to this:
Who do you think will do a better job, a team of 10 people each earning $200K per year or a team of 1000 people each working for fun.

posted July 11, 2007

Coverty, a company specialised in static source code analysis, has published a number of reports on open source, including an "Open Source Quality Report", which you may find interesting. The interpretation of their findings has been fueled debate on this subject.

Links:

• http://www.coverity.com/html/library.php#opensource
• http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/07/173255

posted July 11, 2007

Certainly greater hours, labor and effort involved in writing a given code, the more opportunity for error.

The people who involve themselves in open source systems are highly motivated and have, in my experience, devoted equal commitment and attention to debugging it.

I've found that very few commercially available systems have been perfect out of the box nor trouble-free. Perhaps those who are tasked with the relatively thankless job of writing and testing that code might not feel the same degree of commitment nor particular loyalty to their employers; in my opinion, there seems to be a shockingly wide variation in different Original Equipment Manufacturers' individual interpretations of the term "bench testing."

posted July 12, 2007

I spent some time thinking about this a little, because it is an interesting question. I posted my thought on my blog.

Links:

• http://cmssphere.blogspot.com/2007/07/open-source-versus-commercial-softwar...

posted July 14, 2007