Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 21:38 UTC, submitted by whorider
Thread beginning with comment 400179
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
True.
That part is up to the original project itself.
By "project", I mean an open source collaborative development project, such as KDE, or GNOME, or Apache, or Mozilla, or whatever.
The projects audit their source code and submissions to their source coe.
The distributions audit that that source code faithfully gets on to end users systems.
Neither party does the work of the other. It is a collaboration involve multiple, independent individuals, all of who have an interest in ensuring the purity of the code.
It is also like a double-blind. No one malicious person (who might have an aim to infect end users systems with malware) gets to push the code the whole way through to end users systems.
Finally ... don't forget about the perfect record of this system. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.