Would you hire a well known electrician who was not bonded and insured? Sometimes it's nice to know there is more than blind trust.
Because that is the purpose of 'bonded and insured'.
I haven't looked at every EULA and license of every piece of software I use, but I bet that "without warranty" clauses are part of every single one of them.
You’re sidestepping their point of professionalism and attempting to shove in something else.
They are saying they want a verified authority, not "the community".
[1]: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/Ubuntu2404Bpf...
If I get Ubuntu or Debian or download the mainline kernel, I'm trusting specific entities. That's very different from a vague idea that it's open source and hopefully someone checked if this particular random guy on github is putting out legitimate builds.
"You can view the source on GitHub" is very different than "A knowledgable person has audited the millions of lines of source code and confirmed that nobody added anything shady or stupid." People often don't take the time to comprehend all the source of the things they depend on, especially for large dependencies and/or prototyping-scale projects.
Outside of open source, it was a NYT excuse for the NYPD failing to save Kitty Genovese. The number of witnesses was greatly exaggerated, and the police were called at least once.
I don't think you mean to refer to the bystander effect, because the bystander effect says that the likelihood of intervention goes down as the number of bystanders goes up. You don't seem to be arguing that people are less likely to look at the source because the source is available to more people. More just claiming that people don't look at the source as often as you would like? That open source isn't always perfectly bug and backdoor free? Because I don't know if:
> "A knowledgable person has audited the millions of lines of source code and confirmed that nobody added anything shady or stupid."
Has been claimed about many large pieces of software, proprietary or not.
1. Fully automated and reproducible builds, bootstrapped through a verifiable chain. GNU Guix has done this: https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2023/the-full-source-bootstrap-...
2. Unapologetically, ruthlessly, and tirelessly simplify the software. Suckless.org is a bit on the extreme end, but I continue to be impressed by OpenBSD - it strikes a beautiful balance between clarity and function. They've also meticulously combed the entire source tree around 2010, looking for any signs of the supposed FBI backdoor.
It takes a lot of motivation to do either, let alone both. The financial incentives are elsewhere. But it's been (and being) done.
You can for sure like whatever homegrown community Linux distro you want. It doesn't remove the work those players have done. :)
Whatever track record these companies might have had, doesn't justify their current stance or actions. Hans Reiser also made a pretty darn good filesystem - before he murdered his wife.
The "you can just read the code" mindset is completely unrealistic, even for software that's orders of magnitudes smaller. If the issue at hand is entering my Google password, I'd rather do it in a ROM built by Google.
Community reputation is the current _de facto_ standard for consumer-facing software, even for stuff sold by big corporations. There's not much else to rely on.