You should explain what you mean by decentralization. I think you are mixing concepts here and don't bring much to the discussion. What does "Decentralization of open source" means ?
It seems you are saying that having multiple contributors and auditors keeps linux safe, I wouldn't really call this "decentralization", you can have a centralized process that is audited by many persons.
I've tried to explain but the comment was blocked because I was replying too quickly.
Decentralisation has three dimensions: Political, Logical and Architectural. In the case of Linux, I argue that the decentralised nature of open-source software development is what guarantees its safety and usefulness and not the individual merits of any one participant (person or company).
I think I'm not saying anything contentious when I say that Linus' employer has no special treatment in terms of linux development roadmap, and that most contributions are voluntary and no one needs to ask permission to download the code and fork the project and this is logical and political decentralisation.
I believe this quote is appropriate given that some users seem to be unaware of how the kernel development process is decentralised:
"Instead of a roadmap, there are technical guidelines. Instead of a central resource allocation, there are persons an companies who all have a stake in the further development of the Linux kernel, quite independently from one another: People like Linus Torvalds and I don’t plan the kernel evolution. We don’t sit there and think up the roadmap for the next two years, then assign resources to the various new features. That's because we don’t have any resources. The resources are all owned by the various corporations who use and contribute to Linux, as well as by the various independent contributors
out there. It's those people who own the resources who decide."
- Andrew Morton on the kernel process
