> Random example is that the Linux kernel didn't have much tests (I think these days there is more testing).
As the author of many of Linux’s x86 tests: many of those tests would fail on old kernels, and a decent number of those failures are related to very severe bugs. Linux has worked well for many years, but working well didn’t mean it wasn’t buggy.
As was said in another comment, tests don't prove the lack of bugs. There is no software of enough complexity without bugs.
Working is something ;) Lots of software barely does that and there is certainly plenty of software with tests that doesn't meet the no-test Linux quality bar.
That said, tests certainly have their place in the world of software quality, so thanks for your work!
As the author of many of Linux’s x86 tests: many of those tests would fail on old kernels, and a decent number of those failures are related to very severe bugs. Linux has worked well for many years, but working well didn’t mean it wasn’t buggy.