This is a valid point but there are a few counterpoints that come to mind: * FOSS now, while complex and intimidating, at least has the possibility of allowing

This is a valid point but there are a few counterpoints that come to mind: * FOSS now, while complex and intimidating, at least has the possibility of allowing for bug fixing and alteration (and having those alterations fold back into the main project) whereas proprietary software almost surely does not. * The situation is not as dire as you suggest for many projects, especially ones that are self contained or smaller in scope. Arduino libraries can be understood and updated. There's a lot of scientific software that can have parts isolated, updated and fixed for someone knowledgeable enough. Technical tasks like fixing headers, patching code or even using Git, are intimidating and difficult. Many projects are so complex now that on-ramps, even for highly technical users, are difficult. I don't see that changing anytime soon. FOSS at least offers people who can understand these technical tasks the possibility to take actionable response. Convenience is absolutely something that should be prioritized but proprietary software and closed standards favor ease of use at the cost of freedom and, ultimately, longevity. My view is that FOSS is a necessary but insufficient element to a healthy ecosystem. FOSS, especially compared with proprietary software, is at least a step in the right direction.