>Did any of these open-source projects that lag behind had a budget that at least was of the same order of magnitude of their proprietary counterparts? I don't

>Did any of these open-source projects that lag behind had a budget that at least was of the same order of magnitude of their proprietary counterparts? I don't think so. No they didn't and that's why I put those lagging open-source projects as examples to make readers imagine that an alternate-history-open-source Mathematica may have lagged behind like them too. I think you lost track of the argument put forth by this thread's essay from Jon McLoone of Wolfram. Your emphasis about "no big budget" actually supports his listed benefits of the paid model in: https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-open-source-a-dozen-reasons/#six-our-developers-work-for-you-not-just-themselves https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-op... Again, when he wrote : >[...] I think that it would not have been possible to create the Wolfram technology stack using a free and open-source model. ... he's saying you wouldn't have the comprehensive Mathematica product we see today with the open source model. Perhaps the histories of how GIMP/OpenCAD/SageMath evolved supports his point that Mathematica was correct in not choosing their open-source model?