We all want the same thing here: government software that works, keeps our data safe, and doesn't burn through tax dollars. So let's look at what open source actually gives us. It gives the public the ability to see what their government is doing with their information. If the code is secret, we're just trusting them. Open source means independent experts can audit it, find flaws, and call out backdoors. That's not a security risk, that's security. Closed code is a liability you can't inspect. Open code is a public record we can verify. That's the whole point.

You talk about national security risks, but the real-world example that kills your argument is NASA. The International Space Station runs Linux. The Pentagon uses open source in systems that have to be rock solid. Why? Because hiding code doesn't hide vulnerabilities, it hides them from the people who could fix them. When an open source flaw appears, a global community audits it immediately. With proprietary software, you're waiting on one vendor who might have an interest in not finding the problem. That's not security, that's a trust fall. Open source is the only way we actually know what our government's code does.

You keep coming back to national security, and that's a fair worry—but the real risk is trusting code we can't inspect. If a vulnerability exists, hiding the source doesn't hide it from hackers; it only hides it from our own experts. Government agencies using open source get thousands of eyes finding flaws, not one vendor with an incentive to downplay them. Plus, taxpayers paid for that software—they should be able to see what it does. Secrecy for national security is one thing, but secret code as a default is just a lack of accountability dressed up as caution.