There are two software projects that have had huge influence on the -quality of free software, and I wanted to mention both in case someone -do not yet know them.
- -The first one is valgrind, a -tool to detect and expose errors in the memory handling of programs. -It is easy to use, all one need to do is to run 'valgrind program', -and it will report any problems on stdout. It is even better if the -program include debug information. With debug information, it is able -to report the source file name and line number where the problem -occurs. It can report things like 'reading past memory block in file -X line N, the memory block was allocated in file Y, line M', and -'using uninitialised value in control logic'. This tool has made it -trivial to investigate reproducible crash bugs in programs, and have -reduced the number of this kind of bugs in free software a lot. - -
The second one is -Coverity which is -a source code checker. It is able to process the source of a program -and find problems in the logic without running the program. It -started out as the Stanford Checker and became well known when it was -used to find bugs in the Linux kernel. It is now a commercial tool -and the company behind it is running -a community service for the -free software community, where a lot of free software projects get -their source checked for free. Several thousand defects have been -found and fixed so far. It can find errors like 'lock L taken in file -X line N is never released if exiting in line M', or 'the code in file -Y lines O to P can never be executed'. The projects included in the -community service project have managed to get rid of a lot of -reliability problems thanks to Coverity.
- -I believe tools like this, that are able to automatically find -errors in the source, are vital to improve the quality of software and -make sure we can get rid of the crashing and failing software we are -surrounded by today.
+DagensIT +melder at Telenor og Tono skal i retten på mandag for å diskutere +hvorvidt Tonos krav om at Telenor skal blokkere for tilgang til The +Pirate Bay er i tråd med norsk rett. Det blir interessant å se +resultatet fra den rettsaken.
+ +Jeg bet meg dog merke i en av påstandene fra Tonos advokat Cato +Strøm, som forteller at "Pirate Bay inneholder 95 prosent ulovlig +utlagt materiale, og å stanse tilgangen til det kan ikke kalles +sensur". Jeg tok en titt på +forsiden til The Pirate Bay, +som forteller at det pr. i dag er 1 884 694 torrenter på trackeren. +Dette tilsvarer antall filer en kan søke blant og hente ned ved hjelp +av The Pirate Bay. 5% av dette antallet er 94 235. Det kan dermed +virke som om Tonos advokat mener at det ikke er sensur å blokkere for +tilgang til nesten 100 000 lovlige filer. Jeg lurer på om han er +korrekt sitert.
+ +Lurer også på hvor 95%-tallet kommer fram. Er det seriøs og +etterprøvbar forskning på området som viser at dette er andelen +ulovlige filer tilgjengelig via The Pirate Bay, eller er det +musikkbransjenes egne tall? De har +jo +demonstrert at de ikke er i stand til å skille lovlig og ulovlig +bruk av musikk.