> I tend to install FOSS because imo they are more "future-proof", but some of them are developed by companies (e.g., Fedora Linux) and that makes me wonder if

> I tend to install FOSS because imo they are more "future-proof", but some of them are developed by companies (e.g., Fedora Linux) and that makes me wonder if they're truly future-proof. The story of CentOS should be telling that, no, many pieces of software that are backed by a company will not be future-proof and will probably experience certain changes as a consequence of that, be it being transformed to better fit corporate goals (CentOS Stream), or being retired eventually so the company may focus on something else (Atom), or will just be left to slowly rot over time as happens with most code (OpenOffice). Then again, it's not like open source projects are that future proof or safe from "drama" either - for example, the Lubuntu project has 2 homepages for no reason: the official one at https://lubuntu.me/ https://lubuntu.me/ and some other one that serves old versions and is not trusted by my ad blocking solution https://lubuntu.net/ https://lubuntu.net/ There are also cases, when open source projects experience fragmentation like happened with Gogs https://gogs.io/ https://gogs.io/ and Gitea https://gitea.io/en-us/ https://gitea.io/en-us/ and sometimes there are cases where particular individuals simply cannot work together and as a consequence pretty much the same happens, as was the case with Swoole and Open Swoole: https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src/issues/4434 https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src/issues/4434 Treat most pieces of software that you use as if they might not be there in a year. Or, alternatively, as if you might need to take over the maintenance of whatever you're using, if you can.