Reviews? If the guys from the reviews didn't see the source code how can they assure me it's safe? Just because the anti-virus didn't say it was a virus?
1)You know that program isn't safe if your computer starts acting strange after running it (not mater if anti-virus says it's safe).
2)Even if you have sourecode and you're native programmer of it's language still you can't be sure if that code is safe or not when code is more complex.
3)I don't believe that you read and analyze sources of any program you download before you install it, that would need too much time (did you ever tried to read sources of linux kernel
).
1) If my computer never acts "strangely" it means all the programs are safe? That's a big supposition to make, because behind the GUI there's many stuff going on, stuff you can't really know without the source code. Btw, why does the developer choose what's safe for me? I think i'm grown up, i should choose what to do with the program and not the developer choosing for me.
2)Sure, it's possible. But remember, there are approximately 7 billion people on this planet, don't you think someone could know and would be willing to?
3)You're right again. And i would say more: that's impossible. No developer, no matter how skilled he is, he can't read all the source of the programs he installs. That's why we need to do this together.
I haven't checked linux sources, but many people from the free software and open-source software communities have, and have contributed to it.
That's one more benefit that everyone gets when a program is released under a free-as-in-freedom license. Anyone can contribute to it, which leads into a faster development and more innovation.
And secondly that's a pure lie. I'm guessing you never heard about GNU/Linux, OpenOffice, GIMP, Audacity, Firefox, Apache, and the list goes on.
Yes, I've heard and tested them (and many others). I didn't suggest they aren't advanced (also i think they are good) but they all have equivalents that are even better and even more advanced.
I also tested some native linux programs (some of them are open source and some are closed and shareware - on linux) and that payed were incomparably better, seriously.
I think you're judging them also by which has most market share. And obviously with more market share, more companies will support those programs or OSes. But this doesn't mean they're technically better.
Well some of them really have superior proprietary alternatives (like GIMP and Photoshop). But other software like Apache, Firefox and also GNU/Linux are at least equivalent to the proprietary alternatives.
Anyways, you have your opinion, i have mine and both should be respected. But everyone would benefit much more from a free-as-in-freedom program than a proprietary one.