Yes, but if this is standard procedure in 99.999% of cases, I doubt "good enough for them" habit of running a commercial binary that's not open source (basically how the whole planet except perhaps NSA and such works), is not also good enough for some random linux user (assuning they don't trade in ultra-sensitive data).

As I said, it is not good enough for me. Why do you feel the need to argue for closed-source software, anyway? Do you need to justify this to yourself? Rest assured, personally, I don't care what you feel comfortable using.

on a side note, banks and governments often actually audit closed-source code, as they get that worked out in their contracts. Go ahead and ask Microsoft, if you could do the same...

>Why do you feel the need to argue for closed-source software, anyway? Do you need to justify this to yourself? Rest assured, personally, I don't care what you feel comfortable using.

Why do you feel the need for ad-hominen arguments and pop-psychology BS? Do you feel personally validated because you use Open Source, compensating for other lacks in your life, perhaps not being loved enough as a kid?

See how two can play this game? Maybe stick to practical arguments?

My point was in practical use, trusting a proprietary commercial binary (from Microsoft, Oracle, whatever) is not a big issue for far more sensitive environments (banks, governents, etc) than the average user case.

Lol. I was just stating my personal preferences, then you came calling me out unreasonable. I made it very clear, that it's about how I feel about it. Not reason. I am not arguing at all.

But hey, I also gave you an actual argument, you ignored......