One of the arguments of ClosedSource proponents is that 99% (or some suitably overwhelming proportion) of users have no desire to see source code, and no ability to do anything with it if they could. Therefore the claimed advantage of OpenSource in allowing such things is pointless.

RedHat's Bob Young points out that exactly the same thing applies to cars: 99% of car owners (and drivers) have no idea what is under the bonnet of their car, no wish to look at it, and no ability to understand or modify any of the mechanisms there. Therefore, by the same logic, why bother to build cars with a bonnet that can open at all: why not seal the bonnet, and the customers will be just as happy, right?

Wrong. Even if the customers don't need to look under the bonnets of their cars, the mechanics they pay to keep them running and fix problems still need to get access at all the internal mechanisms, be able to open them up, make adjustments, replace parts and so on. And so it is with Open Source software: if the user of the software needs some capability that the software doesn't already have, they can get in experts (or "geeks", as we call them) who have the ability to perform such customizations. And those experts have much more freedom to do their job with open-source software than with closed-source.