"Of course, there's no guarantees, but more eyes means more chances of bugs getting caught. And that means safer."
That doesn't. It means potential to be safer if all kinds of things line up. Vast majority of FOSS code is crap like any other code. More eyes didn't change that. What's needed is design/implementation work, qualified review, time, and trustworthiness of reviewers & distribution.
In this order: provably safer is better than potentially safer; potentially safer is better than no potential. And still, as I showed, open or closed source at consumer level has little to do with the potential. It's amount of trusted development and/or review of source then distribution of that. Illustrated where greater than means more trustworthy, reliable, and/or effective:
1. Rigorously designed & reviewed open-source is greater than...
2. Rigorously designed & reviewed closed-source is greater than...
3. Typical, open-source is greater than...
4. Typical, closed-source is greater than...
5. Cloud infrastructure based on Concurrent DOS written in a MOL-360 language.
That doesn't. It means potential to be safer if all kinds of things line up. Vast majority of FOSS code is crap like any other code. More eyes didn't change that. What's needed is design/implementation work, qualified review, time, and trustworthiness of reviewers & distribution.
http://pastebin.com/pjc0cueA