> This is what I was thinking: it seems like any security and reliability vulnerabilities from OSS are at least as bad, if not worse, in paid software or closed

> This is what I was thinking: it seems like any security and reliability vulnerabilities from OSS are at least as bad, if not worse, in paid software or closed-source. This is wrong: it's better in open source land. Closed source means you, the user have to wait for the vendor to ship a fix. With closed source, the answer sometimes is the version you are on is no longer maintained, and you must buy a new licenses to fix the vulnerability in your closed-source product. Other times, the answer is, sorry, we discontinued that product and will not be patching it. With open source, you have options when a maintainer says the version is too old: fix yourself, use a patched fork, or migrate. Any way you go, the situation is substantially better than closed source. > OSS actually gives you a benefit that you can see the code and technically discover any bugs or exploits (even though of course nobody will). People can and do find and report bugs and exploits in OSS all the time. It's what makes open source work so well.