One major area where i do not support open/shared source is security related products. Completely counter-intuitive. The idea is to protect from malicious activity and be informed of what other software is doing, and maintain a staunch defense against attack. The idea is to make it as hard as possible for the evil-doers; why give them the advantage of seeing the source code. Can you make it any easier? Even the developer of Lulu says on the website: "Note, as with any security tool, direct or proactive attempts to specifically bypass LuLu's protections will likely succeed. " He also says, "..by design LuLu (currently) implements few self-defense mechanisms."
Yes, if an app wanted to bypass Little Snitch and Hands Off, etc, it could try as well, but again, at least the source code for those products isn't out there to pick over. Don't make it any easier for the bad guys.. We're not talking about the source code to a text editor, people, we're talking about source code to a firewall product that is supposed to tell you what/who/where the software on your Mac is talking too (servers in China? Russia? Central Europe?)
Now, if the user intent is to simply monitor outgoing connections (Lulu ONLY monitors outgoing; Little Snitch and Hands Off monitor both directions), any of these protects will probably do; if the intent is to have a product that is one brick as part of an overall security and protection wall, then LIttle Snitch and Hand Off are more appropriate. This is not a criticism of Lulu as far as what it does or how well, it's a discussion of philosophy and encouraging people to understand what it is and ISN'T, and do your research.
Make no mistake about this people, with regards to cyber security, it is a WAR. And in a war, do you show your enemy your battle plan? By providing the source code, yes, you are.