> You can end up with poorly written code generated by unqualified people that addresses short term business needs. Such code tends to be abandoned quickly by i

> You can end up with poorly written code generated by unqualified people that addresses short term business needs. Such code tends to be abandoned quickly by its sponsor which causes long term maintenance problems. In the Linux ecosystem, stuff tends to go bad quietly in the darkness. Care to provide an example of this? I've heard critiques of Linux's model that were basically FUD attempts by others in the past, that sound strikingly similar to this sentence. The FUD was about security holes that could be "snuck" into the code, when no one was looking. For anyone with a cursory knowledge of the actual process, there is an understanding that this generally cannot and does not happen. The process is specifically design to keep 'poorly written code' from entering in the kernel. You may be talking about user-space. There, the code quality is largely a function of the maintainers and their processes. No specific OSes user space is immune to this, c.f. OpenSSL. So, put another way, I'm not buying that argument. > The BSDs run off of good old fashioned ego driven software development done by people who care deeply about software. This may be the most cringe-worthy statement I've seen posted on HN in a while. Ego/hero driven development is an antipattern you would like to avoid. Suppose your hero/massive ego person decides that they don't like X, being some thing that industry as a whole, has adopted. As a result, no progress is made on X, proposals to deal with X have been generally slapped down, or slow walked. Because the ego/hero involved doesn't like it. This isn't theoretical for me, I've seen this upfront and personal recently. This attitude, combined with several co-morbid positions, lead to outcomes that no one wants.