[cipehr]

What? Since when was asking questions to clarify someones position considered "pushing back?"

Can you help me understand what about the questions make you uncomfortable?

I am completely unaffiliated with Kagi. I find it concerning that we've come to a world were we can't ask questions without it being taken as something hostile to the person/people/idea being questioned. Is that not what science is?

[inopinatus]

If you don’t think “you can just audit the binary with tools” is pushing back, then I don’t know what is, and especially so when you’ve framed the invitation with “I'd rather listen”.

I’m reminded of the number of times I’ve had vendors sit across the table from me and argue that our fixed requirements for <whatever> are just a preference or a nice-to-have. This generally doesn’t bode well for their prospects.

[cipehr]

Fair enough. I personally did not read push back in the questions/statements asked/made.

> Trust with regards to...?

I took this to be a good faith ask for clarification

> Orion doesn't have any telemetry... You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc...

I took this as a statement if what I could do, not specifically what I should do instead of getting it open sourced.

Maybe I read it with more good faith intention and curiosity than I should have. I see your point on how that could be perceived as push back, but I landed somewhere different from where you might have.

[rplnt]

> you can just audit the binary with tools”

That statement also said you have to audit binary even if the code is open source. Which isn't entirely true as other comments pointed out - reproducible builds - but the idea doesn't seem like pushing back to me. It was to point out that open source doesn't automatically imply any level of trust when it comes to security/privacy.