Coverity has been reporting bugs it finds in the Linux kernel since ~2000.[1] That makes this comparison complete nonsense, surely? "Bugs found by static analy

Coverity has been reporting bugs it finds in the Linux kernel since ~2000.[1] That makes this comparison complete nonsense, surely? "Bugs found by static analyser X" is only useful as a metric for comparing software projects insofar as it's representative of wider code quality. Which may well be true normally, but doesn't work if you report those bugs, then do the analysis again after they're fixed to compare with the results from software projects you didn't do that with! [1] See http://www.coverity.com/library/pdf/linux_report.pdf‎ http://www.coverity.com/library/pdf/linux_report.pdf‎ . At one point it listed all linux bugs found at http://linuxbugs.coverity.com/ http://linuxbugs.coverity.com/ . Example bug report on lkml from last month: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/5/297 https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/5/297