Article doesn't mention -- long term support is potentially cheaper for open source than closed source. If the author is claiming that backwards compatibility i

Article doesn't mention -- long term support is potentially cheaper for open source than closed source. If the author is claiming that backwards compatibility is the reason windows sucks, and there are really organizations that need to use the same binary for 25 years (dubious), those orgs should consider OSS (not necessarily FOSS). This is a claim that would need to be studied, but I believe it because of the combination of large part-time development expertise (large population of people who can at least build the software) and reliance on open source libraries (i.e. key APIs are being kept up to date). That said, gnome is a monster too.