Free software is sometimes low quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible.
Swap "free" for "proprietary" in that quote, and the statement is no less true. (Voice of experience, here) Continuing:
If people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must explain why open source has not lived up to its "promise" and conclude that proprietary tools would be a better choice.
No, they need not. If even a handful of free or open source software meets the standards of quality one sets for proprietary software -- and I would argue not only that such a handful exists, but the so-called "standards" must be rather low to pass some of the proprietary software I've dealt with -- then open source has indeed kept its promise. Nor does the existence of some "bad" open source software imply that proprietary is better. If that were the case, we must also accept the reverse, that the existence of some "bad" proprietary software implies open source is better. Examples exist in both categories, so clearly each is better than the other.
Here's the deal: An open source package, once "in the wild", can become very hard to kill if it gains any traction to speak of. As long as someone keeps the source available, anyone else can not only acquire and use it, but build on and improve it. Not so, proprietary. With the source kept to the strict confines of a few personal or company machines, its growth and development are limited to what its owners see fit to pursue or permit, and they can choke it off at any time. As a consequence, we tend to see more "bad" open software roaming the net as abandoned projects are left to anyone who cares to pick them up, while proprietary packages that either don't make the grade or lose their luster meet a quiet demise behind closed doors. That's what makes proprietary software look better: the "bad" stuff just gets killed off more effectively.
Free software is sometimes low quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible.
Swap "free" for "proprietary" in that quote, and the statement is no less true. (Voice of experience, here) Continuing:
If people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must explain why open source has not lived up to its "promise" and conclude that proprietary tools would be a better choice.
No, they need not. If even a handful of free or open source software meets the standards of quality one sets for proprietary software -- and I would argue not only that such a handful exists, but the so-called "standards" must be rather low to pass some of the proprietary software I've dealt with -- then open source has indeed kept its promise. Nor does the existence of some "bad" open source software imply that proprietary is better. If that were the case, we must also accept the reverse, that the existence of some "bad" proprietary software implies open source is better. Examples exist in both categories, so clearly each is better than the other.
Here's the deal: An open source package, once "in the wild", can become very hard to kill if it gains any traction to speak of. As long as someone keeps the source available, anyone else can not only acquire and use it, but build on and improve it. Not so, proprietary. With the source kept to the strict confines of a few personal or company machines, its growth and development are limited to what its owners see fit to pursue or permit, and they can choke it off at any time. As a consequence, we tend to see more "bad" open software roaming the net as abandoned projects are left to anyone who cares to pick them up, while proprietary packages that either don't make the grade or lose their luster meet a quiet demise behind closed doors. That's what makes proprietary software look better: the "bad" stuff just gets killed off more effectively.