You're attempting to justify the release of a (potentially fatally) flawed product on the grounds of lost "competitive advantage".
If you lost a family member to a faulty (yet certified!) medical device, would you feel that their death is justified by a marginal improvement to some company's bottom line? What if it wasn't a medical device with closed code, but a miracle pill whose manufacturer refused to release the formula to the government for analysis?
The argument I made in my original comment does not rely on the (un)soundness of your original claims - it is a moral argument about the value we place on human life. I'd be willing to bet that, even if you think that closed source is superior in every fashion, you would never be satisfied by your own justifications in the case of a personal tragedy. This contradiction suggests that, at the very least, we must draw a distinction between justifiably and unjustifiably closed source code.
You're attempting to justify the release of a (potentially fatally) flawed product on the grounds of lost "competitive advantage".
If you lost a family member to a faulty (yet certified!) medical device, would you feel that their death is justified by a marginal improvement to some company's bottom line? What if it wasn't a medical device with closed code, but a miracle pill whose manufacturer refused to release the formula to the government for analysis?
The argument I made in my original comment does not rely on the (un)soundness of your original claims - it is a moral argument about the value we place on human life. I'd be willing to bet that, even if you think that closed source is superior in every fashion, you would never be satisfied by your own justifications in the case of a personal tragedy. This contradiction suggests that, at the very least, we must draw a distinction between justifiably and unjustifiably closed source code.