[deleted] I would like to hear what drawbacks open-source software has.
For starters, it takes much, much longer for new features to get done usually. It's very common for resources to be constrained for years. And projects get abandoned as quick as they begin.
[deleted] that the answer "it's open source" can't be the only argument
It sounds like your problem is about getting short, generalized answers that don't include context or nuance.
I suggest you don't get your answers from Reddit.
[deleted] I'm pretty confident in their analysis.
It's very common for non-technical people to want to put their trust in experts. In your case, you trust graphene developers.
But that is the benefit of open source projects. That you can trust the community at large.
[deleted] My point is simple: the question of open source (reading the code) is irrelevant for most people, that's all.
You use words like myth and irrelevant. The reason why those words invite argument is because they are incorrectly used.
Open source is not a myth. We've established that it exists.
It's not irrelevant either.
It may not be top of mind or something an ordinary user can understand fully. It is a relevant but nebulous concept. I agree that most users simply don't care about open source or closed source. But that's nature of software, it runs in the background and people don't have to think about it.
A good analogy would be when an ordinary user is looking for investment opportunities.
They don't have the financial knowledge to know the differences. So they consult with experts about it.
Open source, in this analogy, is like mutual funds. There's great benefit in investing in a diverse fund rather than a single company stock. They may not fully understand how it works, or even care. I'm sure some people are tired of getting that answer, but it's the correct one.