This is such a flawed argument. All of the above is based on a composition/division fallacy. You're assuming a part applies to the whole or majority, when in re

This is such a flawed argument. All of the above is based on a composition/division fallacy. You're assuming a part applies to the whole or majority, when in reality, this isn't the case. Your bias shows in the way you describe this, and your argument makes a presupposition involving the other side where their argument MUST somehow follow a sort of nirvana fallacy. The other side's argument are all invalid because they MUST be based on rejection of an idea because it isn't perfect. Again, this isn't the case, and it only applies to a minority within the open source community involving themselves in security.This isn't even taking into account you calling them fanatics as if its valid; it is on the verge of being ad hominem depending on what your intention was and wether you're aware of what you're implying in the first place. Also, what market? You mean the market that some companies try create where one of the main concerns is the open sourcing of some products so there's no need for audit requests? Is this not a valid concern to you, or does this tie into your aforementioned bias? I understand the concept you try push, but if you want to make an argument, at least make sure it's put out there in a valid way with solid points. Doing otherwise is only a disservice to your side.