I honestly prefer open source and recognize the problem the author points out as clearly significant problem - as well as the benefits of LibreSSL, but I'm just not convinced there are enough eyeballs looking at open source crypto.
Closed source proprietary crypto, you just don't know who wrote it, who audited it and who backdoored it and who knows of any flaws in it.
Open source crypto, it's there. Go read the source. Anyone can and it's open for audit.
There aren't enough eyeballs I agree but there are infinitely more trustworthy people looking at it than closed source.
But reflect on this: we're looking at it now. There are more eyeballs looking at open-source crypto than closed source crypto. Reflect on that for a moment, and on the RSA BSAFE/NSA 'enabling' and the like, and remember that being well-funded didn't stop Apple's source-available implementation from going directly to fail.
I wonder, for example, what's really under the hood of, say, Microsoft SChannel/CAPI/CNG? I'm a reverse-engineer (which means I don't need no stinking source code, given a large enough supply of chocolate) so I may look in detail, when I get a large enough patch of free time. I've heard it's not as bad as it could be… but I know on this subject, for example it ships Dual_EC_DRBG as alternative in CNG (but uses CTR_DRBG by default from Vista SP1 onwards, thank goodness). The old RtlGenRandom wasn't too great, I know that much.
In other words, with proprietary sw, at least SOMEBODY evaluated it and placed their seal/name on it. With open source, you are relying on a hope that somebody out there somewhere does it. And in various cases, we've seen how that turned out.
You're not making a substantial argument, but if someone has a track record of writing completely safe software that doesn't have to be secured through third party products, like Microsoft, I will be willing to listen.
[1]: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-2422.1.72/bsd...