>I think he had a point, some OSS software is objectively just bad - UX, UI, bugs, overly complicated. A lot of the closed-source software is also quite bad, b

>I think he had a point, some OSS software is objectively just bad - UX, UI, bugs, overly complicated. A lot of the closed-source software is also quite bad, but in a wholly different way: Sure, the UI is clean and the software is not complicated per se, but often your ability to simply retrieve information has been intentionally degraded in favor of an algorithmic discovery queue. The UI, while simple enough, changes for no good reason far too often. Often these UI changes are seemingly for the worse, so I can only guess that they improve "engagement." And of course, although the application may be simple to use, it's often built with "dark patterns," which are meant to shape your behavior. Yes, you can ignore or overcome these, but it's a hurdle which should never exist in the first place. By contrast, I don't think anyone loves Rhythmbox, (the open source itunes clone) but I've been using it for a decade and the UI has not appreciably changed at all. The application is definitely not perfect, but I can at least work around its flaws because those flaws are consistent. And really, why would a file-based music player need to change its UI much at all? There are no dark patterns to speak of, it's not trying to addict me into consuming more content, or paying for some subscription service.