Open source is inherently more secure then closed source, not because of how the code is written and reviewed, but because of how the code is published and dist

Open source is inherently more secure then closed source, not because of how the code is written and reviewed, but because of how the code is published and distributed. Suppose we have two projects with 100% identical source code, which are mathematically proven to both contain 0 bugs, and which have been extensively audited by third parties. Despite being identical, the open source version will be much more secure for end users, because the source code and machine code can be obtained, compiled and distributed by a much larger number of competing parties. This allows users to compare compiler output and run-time behavior, to verify that software being run is actually the software being written, and to ensure that the software is not surreptitiously modified by the publisher during its distribution. With closed source software, even if developers write a 100% perfect codebase, the end users have no way of knowing whether they are actually getting that specific code base in their binaries, as there are legal and technical barriers in place preventing them from reliably making that verification for every change.