No. I think I understnd how to interpret a commit log. If the commit was from a trusted source, ignore it. You have just narrowed down your search by at least 2 orders of magnitude. If you have a suspected commiter, scrutinize them. Commit logs go a very long way to taking your OMFG How will anyone analyze every change! to a pleasant rejoicing song of: Hey, it turns out we only have to review a very small subset!

There is no old code; only old auditors :-)

I can assure you, when I analyze any hardware/software system I don't in any manner way shape or form categorize anything, or base any decision on the age of, and subsystem.

I doubt I'm the only competent analyst.

Non-sequitur much?

Somebody should invent commit logs!

"But with Linux most contributors, be they individuals or companies, are primarily concerned with their own projects."

Your definition of contributor is skewed. A FOSS contributor may do so in many ways. Clearly a project lead for a major project isn't going to contribute further by analyzing the ecosystem; their plate is full. There are others, also known as contributors, who do this. Other contributors administer project websites or write documentation. There is a whole wide array of types of contributors.

That being said, clearly there are more developers than people doing security audits, and it would be nice to see more contribtors in all the other categories, actually.

That is correct. In the world of the big boys we release updates on a moment by moment basis, thereby avoiding as much as a months delay for no good reason. :-)

In Open Source vernacular, we call that becoming more and more secure :-)

And how, prey tell, do you expect the developers to sign their packages with everybody else's private keys? If they do that the update will fail, because the package manager isn't going to install a package from an Ubuntu repository that isn't signed by Cannonical's private key, for example.

"... for those that were stupid enough to think that something electronic and stored in a common format over a common communications medium was secure.

Stupid enough? I hate to break it to you, but most if not all secure systems work in exactly the way you decry to be "stupid". Maybe you've heard of SSL?

You''re a troll. Plain and simple. I have been installing Linux on computers for more than 15 years. I have yet to be unable to get a computer to run flawlessly with the exception of suspend / resume, and that hasn't been a problem for the last couple of years also.

Really? You bought a computer and Windows would install on it? Please do tell us how you managed this amazing trick!

"I've administered Linux systems since 1995."

So you have "administered Linux" since 1995 and you both chose Ubuntu and didn't do any research to see if the laptop you were buying had hardware that wasn't supported (if we are to believe your story at all)? I wouldn't go around telling anyone that story, let alone posting it on Slashdot.

" It's something that actually requires a little thought and analysis."

No. It doesn't require any thought actually. The problem with your statement stems from your lack of understanding of the term "Patent Troll."

" But a high-profile IT company that starts filing patent law suits can only mean one thing, the company has peaked and is on its way down. "

Actually there is another thing it could mean. It could mean somebody is violating their patents. Had that possibility not occured to you?

Which do you not understand? Software or math?