[SlinkyOnStairs]

> I think they are not the best example of Open Source development.

They're not. I'm using them as an example of the "bad" in Open Source development.

But it's also not so much the individual OS components that are a problem, their interactions are just as fragile and usually subject to neither party taking ownership of the problem.

[noisy_boy]

I feel like open source is a forest, not a garden. Things grow and die and those who are strong enough and useful enough and can fit in the environment do survive. The linkages are there but they are not perfectly arranged by some curator because it is not a curated garden. It is not totally haphazard though because the ecology has rules and the better pieces are in harmony with the rest of the system.

We forget that it this organic nature that makes open source what it is. Nobody charges you entry fee, there are no hidden fees once you enter, nobody is trying to sell you crap but you need to learn how to survive yourself. Once you do that, you understand how to deal with shortcomings of a package or finding another solution to your needs. Sure it takes time, but when that becomes second nature and you stop fighting the nature of the ecology itself, there is no other system like it.

That's why comparing it with advantages of other systems is pointless. I didn't choose to walk into the forest because it was a perfectly tailored experience, I did because I wanted freedom. It required me to learn how to fit in and now that I have, I'm at peace with where I am.