I'm sorry but I don't think this argument holds any water. Not once has there ever been a single organization that writes software where the product automatica

I'm sorry but I don't think this argument holds any water. Not once has there ever been a single organization that writes software where the product automatically becomes more secure by virtue of it being 'closed source'. Quite frankly I've seen far more of the opposite. When the software WAS closed source, more often than not we see this being used as an expressway to cut corners! Things like "Nobody will ever do X", or, this is safe because "Who will try that!" And then there's my personal favorite: Where you get a company where all of the programmers are too stuck up in their own world to even realize that their product is completely dangerous and bug-ridden with issues because their code is NEVER scrutinized in the public eye! There's a much bigger reason why code is way better off as open source in the long run: Public Ridicule, Public Oversight, and Community Integration. All of these things stop people from basically writing what boils down to 'speculative garbage'! You'll still get the odd-ball where one guy from the NSA might find one exploit -- but I think that the cost of that issue alone definitely does not outweigh the earlier gains from open sourcing code.