The parent comment was making a statement about quality to which I responded. And if the proprietary software has been an industry standard and deployed in mil

The parent comment was making a statement about quality to which I responded. And if the proprietary software has been an industry standard and deployed in millions of cases before I would have no problem taking the closed source variant. It would be nice to have the source but in most cases I wouldn't know what to do with it anyway as it requires specialist knowledge, so I'd be relying on the community vetting it vs. legal requirements for approval by the regulatory agencies, I mean it would still be better to have the source but I could live without it. Anyway my point isn't even related to preference, I'm just saying that the conditions for successful OSS software are limited to one of the models under which it makes sense commercially for the companies using it (most often IT giants), some sort of commercial support/free software deal or in rare cases it's a labor of love for geeks. Most of the software written out there doesn't fall nicely in to those categories and so OSS is not viable in those areas.