The "open source" development model is based on the claim that it produces superior software. Of course that claim will be made. But I agree that it is a fall

The "open source" development model is based on the claim that it produces superior software. Of course that claim will be made. But I agree that it is a fallacious claim. _However_, there are strong benefits of anyone being able to audit the code rather than just privileged entities (see below). Security is also about trust. I can't trust non-free software as a matter of principle---the developers, by keeping something proprietary, are hiding something from their users. The intent is irrelevant---"trade secrets" or not, the fact is there. Back to code audits: a common rebuttal is that you can audit certain proprietary software through the signing of nondisclosure agreements. The trust then shifts to the auditor, performing an extremely complicated job (depending on the software). Nobody can verify their work, or even the integrity of the work. Certain types of changes can be "audited" by chance in Free systems: malicious commits/patches to free software is an extremely risky operation because of the chance that you may be found out. You can set yourself up for plausible deniability, but that can hurt your reputation, and the reputation of the project. Since trust is an important aspect of security, non-free software is by default less secure _to me_. It isn't even an option.