I'm not sure I agree with her assessment of quality, nor its importance. Lots of FOSS software is written with the author's view of quality in the forefront - f

I'm not sure I agree with her assessment of quality, nor its importance. Lots of FOSS software is written with the author's view of quality in the forefront - for instance, the GNU HURD project and NixOS are absolutely huge on properly handling error conditions returned from library calls and syscalls, and well-defined interfaces and interactions. We see a similar dedication to well-formedness in the KDE project. But even in this limited realm, these projects don't have primacy. People use GTK, despite it writing literal screenfuls of warnings to console on every application launch. systemd has taken over linux, despite a lack of forethought of how its systems interact or are formed. So it appears that well-formedness has nothing to do with success or adoption of a project. In the closed-source world, the most popular operating system since Windows 95 was Windows. The inherent quality of Windows, while continually improving, appears to be completely irrelevant. In fact, Windows 10 has a lower marketshare than ever, despite crashing less. For individual programs, Photoshop has continually been a crashy, buggy mess, but it's only since they changed licensing schemes has Clip Studio Paint caught on. Word has continually outperformed StarOffice, no matter whether StarOffice handled its COM exceptions nicer or not. The most important thing for a computer system appears to be universality, followed by featureset, followed by user interface. Sadly (or not?), the only "quality" that appears is when the failures are enough to get in the way of the user -- and even then, projects such as Brave for Android and Sharepoint continue to be widely used! Because they offer something no competitor can. Reliability may end up being a tiebreaker, but for most user-facing software, it simply isn't as important as meeting your goals on the feature matrix.