So anywho, I'm in a Facebook Linux users group, and someone gave me a link to a page that lists many (possible ALL) bugs currently (at that time) in the Linux Kernel..... It was disheartening, to say the least..... :( Why is this.....? :( What about Linus' Law.....? :( Thank you for any replies guys..... :)

Too many cooks spoil the broth, As the old saying goes.

A fundamental rule when it comes to ALL software; (assume) everything has bugs, both known AND unknown.

Besides, you're looking at it all wrong and the question is also wrong.

The fact that we don't know the inside of proprietary software, say Windows, which we do know is like a Swiss cheese, but none of us can really do anything about it... That's way more "disheartening", also from a security perspective!

Think about that instead ;)

Simple, Linux is open source so anyone can review the code and contribute if anything seems off or fishy. All the cards are on the table, nothing strange at all.

With Windows, for example, we have no idea how many bugs or backdoors there are because it's closed. Only those at Microsoft can review the code, so if Microsoft wants to do something dirty or if Windows has more bugs than Egypt during the plague, we will not have a clue about it and no one (outside of Microsoft) can do anything about it or call attention to the issue.

Because of the same reason, there are so many bugs in Windows kernel. or Ios kernel. They are made by humans and humans make mistakes.

It's software, and software is shit.

It won't be all bugs. Security bugs will only be visible to properly vetted accounts.

Also consider that linux is expected to be installed on practically everything except an Xbox or an iPhone. (Android has a linux base). Many of the bugs are of the form "a specific 15 year old motherboard has a funny temperature sensor".

In other words, the bugs exist in the hardware, and Linux bugs get created to investigate and work around it.

With more porential hardware combinations than there are stars in the sky, reports of funny behaviour are to be expected.

Assuming any given complex software is not riddled with bugs and security issues is your first mistake and it kinda snowballs from there...

Code without bugs is untested code.

No test was ever comprehensive.

Are you concerned about the amount of bugs, or the criticality of the bugs?

Two sides to this.

First is that there's bugs, and they've tried to patch it, but one of Linus's major laws/rules for the kernel is that you can't break user code. So if you fix a bug, and a piece of software relies on said bug, then you leave the bug in.

I'd think instead they should fix the bug anyways, and then offer a virtual user kernel (a kernel that runs as a regular program) specifically to run a piece of software that relies on said bug.

The second is that some algorithms may due to limitations have a scope of bugs on how it may react, but if you know the limits of the algorithm and only give it inputs that won't go haywire, those bugs won't give you issues. A major example includes anything relying on a 32bit int (nearly everything) with the 0-4billion (or -2billion - 2billion range) for numbers. If you needed larger numbers you end up with a BigInt struct which handles very large numbers, or a pseudo upgraded type like GNU's long long.

Last it's said every 10 lines of code there's a bug. This is nearly unavoidable. But as long as the bugs aren't triggered in some critical way, not much you can do.

Since (2005?) software has been based on testing based mindset. I was told by another software engineer that every line of code has to be covered before they would accept it. So if there's an obscure if/then case, you write a test to trigger that to make sure it works as intended. Curious when you do this approach you rarely need to open a debugger. Using the -coverage and seeing what tests in the unittest failed will generally let you progress much faster than stepping through the code, except in certain cases.

because you don't fix them

It is really hard to make a kernel and as more people add and fix stuff other stuff can me messed up.
For the most part it does not effect much unless a compatibility issue comes up or a OS breaking issue.

The kernel gives me problems with my graphics card i think so it is a bit annoying, with older hardware it works better but a 1060 does not make it happy.

Okay, you try arranging a perfect system core that has to deal with trillions of software/hardware configurations and see how you like it.