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.
+En standard er noe man samler seg rundt, ut fra ideen om at en får +fordeler når mange står sammen. Jo flere som står sammen, jo +bedre. Når en vet dette, blir det litt merkelig å lese noen av +uttalelsene som er kommet inn til +høringen +om versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder. Blant +annet Abelia, NHO og Microsoft tror det er lurt med flere standarder +innenfor samme område. Det blir som å si at det er fint om Norge +standardiserte både på A4- og Letter-størrelser på arkene, ulik +sporvidde på jernbaneskinnene, meter og fot som lengemål, eller +høyre- og venstrekjøring - slik at en kan konkurrere på hvilken +standard som er best. De fleste forstår heldigvis at dette ikke +bidrar positivt.