But does anyone actually audit the code? Programs are so huge now its very likely nobody is actually combing through thousands of lines of code.
This is an important point and the reason why minimalist programs ought to be used over more elaborate programs. How minimal and easy to understand a program is, is directly proportional to how free or libre it is. For instance, sinit + daemontools is a lot more free than systemd, because an ordinary C programmer can oversee the whole code and understand it. The four freedoms, i.e. the ability to read, modify, and share the code are much more tangible with sinit than systemd in this example, as those things can be realistically applied to that sinit due to it's sheer simplicity and understandable code. This is why software minimalism is so important, since you don't really have freedoms if you cannot realistically exercise them. The GrapheneOS fags claim their OS good, since it's "open source", but this is only so on paper. No normal human can read, understand, and modify the code of Android. It requires complex software that nobody understands like Android studio to even get started, not to mention you'll never understand how it works. It's important that the freedoms are tangible and easy to exercise, otherwise they're worthless. No OS that can support a "modern" web browser, has currently those freedoms, realistically speaking. However, it's still important to use more simple systems to be closer, even when you're not there yet.
FOSS projects are also shittier than non-FOSS versions generally.
You compare pears to apples. The proper equivalent to MS Word isn't Libreoffice, but LaTeX. The real equivalent to Photoshop is not GIMP, but imagemagick. Of course those clones of Windows software that are only made to appease newbies, are not the real deal, but the programs that actually require learning and effort to git gud, are usually superior. I would claim one can be tenfold more productive with LaTeX or imagemagick than with their Windows/Mac equivalents, when you're really good at it. Those programs are usually command-line programs, which require much more effort to learn than your usual corporate GUI program, no graphic designer is going to learn all the command-line arguments and script features of imagemagick, but those who do end up with something a lot more powerful.
You compare pears to apples. The proper equivalent to MS Word isn't Libreoffice, but LaTeX. The real equivalent to Photoshop is not GIMP, but imagemagick. Of course those clones of Windows software that are only made to appease newbies, are not the real deal, but the programs that actually require learning and effort to git gud, are usually superior. I would claim one can be tenfold more productive with LaTeX or imagemagick than with their Windows/Mac equivalents, when you're really good at it. Those programs are usually command-line programs, which require much more effort to learn than your usual corporate GUI program, no graphic designer is going to learn all the command-line arguments and script features of imagemagick, but those who do end up with something a lot more powerful.