I would feel much better if passwords were just stored on a HSM (Hardware Security Module) instead of an local unix file system.
And, from a security perspective, it's mostly irrelevant as to whether passwords were hashed (where hash = MD5, SHA, or some other high speed hash function), or salted+hashed.
Why:
Look at two scenarios,
Scenario #1: The security of your Strong, high-entropy password.
Scenario #2: The security of all the n00b's weak passwords.
Then, look at two options:
Option #1: Hashed, no Salt
Option #2: Hashed + Salt.
In Scenario #1 - your password is secure in Option #1, because your password does not appear in a rainbow table.
In Scenario #2 - the vast majority (60%+) of those weak passwords can be brute forced with sophisticated dictionary attacks in a couple days even with a hash+salt - no need to use rainbow tables.
Ironically, Salt's offer no security for you (you don't need them), or the vast majority of people (whose password will be broken, even if they are salted+hashed). Salts+Hash were relevant from 1990-2010, prior to high speed GPUs and ASICs overtaking Rainbow Tables. People learned lessons then, that are no longer relevant.
Now, where Salts ARE important, is with a multi-iteration key-derivative function like bcrypt or scrypt. There, a salt (which is part of the bcrypt and scrypt algorithm) actually does offer (a lot) of security to the n00bs. Without salts scrypt/bcrypt would once again tip the balance back in favor of Rainbow Tables. But, of course, scrypt/bcrypt are inherently salted.
But your high-entropy password is safe regardless.
As always, http://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/