[throwawayaway12]

I think you have pretty much proved his point.

>I realise it's hard for FOSS advocates to understand this, because it's a fundamental flaw with the FOSS philosophy. The benefits are "obvious" to crusaders, but the objective reality is that large swathes of FOSS are full of casual or hobby code that barely works, has gaping security vulns, and/or is nowhere close to being robust enough for production.

>And the solution then is to not use FOSS, because then you don't have to take the internals on trust?

I think the point is to realize FOSS is not a utopia and has tradeoffs like everything else.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> I think the point is to realize FOSS is not a utopia and has tradeoffs like everything else.

But that wasn't what this thread was about. The statement that I was responding to above was this:

>> or exclude FOSS when working commercially.

I.e., that there isn't a tradeoff, but that the solution to shortcomings of some FOSS that aren't unique to FOSS in any way is to not use FOSS at all.

And that was then defended using equally nonsensical logic.

So, noone here is claiming that FOSS is utopia. But people are implying that proprietary software is. Which I am asking people to justify. So far, nobody did.

[TimJYoung]

No, I think what people are implying is that commercial licensing of software solves the trust/responsibility aspect of software. With proprietary software, there are legal remedies to malfeasance.