| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Open Source And VirusesOpen Source And VirusesPosted Jun 7, 2004 13:43 UTC (Mon) by mmarkov (guest, #4978)Parent article: Open Source And Viruses
All programs contain such mistakes --- it is impossible to catch and correct every possible flaw in a program.This is debatable. It depends on the level of complexity. IMO it should be possible to write a MUA, for instance, that is provably bug-free. I mean, whose correctness is verified with formal methods.
(Log in to post comments)
Open Source And Viruses Posted Jun 7, 2004 23:00 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] So far I have heard of none. Please explain why do you think that such a proof cannot have bugs? (How exactly do you formalize all the requirements? That formalization phase is not bug-free).OTOH qmail has a great track record. Posfix is not so bad either.
Open Source And Viruses Posted Jun 8, 2004 13:34 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Plus the fact that a "proof of correctness" is a mathematical proof that something is "logically true".The trouble is that science, the study of the real world, has no concept of a proof of correctness - all it knows is proofs of incorrectness, and by implication "well, it's probably correct because we haven't proved it false". A proof of correctness, BY DEFINITION, must instantly be worthless immediately you try to apply it to a real-world, or scientific, problem. Cheers,
|
|
||||||||||||