The problem is that darwinism keeps biting us in the ass. It simply is not a recipe for orderly transitions between older and newer technologies, which ends up

The problem is that darwinism keeps biting us in the ass. It simply is not a recipe for orderly transitions between older and newer technologies, which ends up costing companies more, not less. One of the primary issues is always: who wants to work for free on software that is 10-15 years old ? Nobody. So, unless the software finds a sponsor of some sort that is willing to pay developers to fix bugs, make incremental improvements, and other very non-glamorous chores, it's going to languish as soon as it falls out of fashion and/or the primary developers move on to something else. And, what small company that is not in the developer tools business is going to want to finance the ongoing cost of keeping such software working ? Not very many. I'm not saying that OSS shouldn't exist. What I'm saying is that OSS has serious effects upon how software is developed, and I don't think that these effects were taken as seriously has they should have been. Everyone saw "free", and it was game-over. There's a lot of good with OSS, but there was also a lot of good with commercial software that we seem to want to ignore. One of those good things was more stability.