When I was in University (some 16 years ago), that was already the case. However, you could only browse the source - some essential pieces were missing that made it impossible to build a working system from that code.
Thus, you still have to trust that code you view is the code you run -- which is almost as bad as trusting documentation.
> I think the difference is that China can write the source for Linux.
I think the key here is that they are able to verify that the code they review is the code the run, by building the system.
And, I'm aware of "reflections on trusting trust", but I'm sure that they have a clean-room bootstrapped C compiler capable enough of bootstrapping tcc or gcc and thus the linux kernel.
Thus, you still have to trust that code you view is the code you run -- which is almost as bad as trusting documentation.
> I think the difference is that China can write the source for Linux.
I think the key here is that they are able to verify that the code they review is the code the run, by building the system.
And, I'm aware of "reflections on trusting trust", but I'm sure that they have a clean-room bootstrapped C compiler capable enough of bootstrapping tcc or gcc and thus the linux kernel.