I think that there are two open-source worlds, really. There are projects people make to fill a niche, or do something "the right way" that hasn't been done bef

I think that there are two open-source worlds, really. There are projects people make to fill a niche, or do something "the right way" that hasn't been done before. Those are the weekend passion projects that get open-sourced because there's no market for it, or perhaps the developer has a day job and doesn't need money. Then there are projects that are high-complexity, high-polish that can't be supported by one person. I'll call these Type A and Type B. Type A can become popular and take on more devs, at which point it tends to become Type B. Type B tends to lose the weekend passion coders, and instead gets people who are building their personal brand around open-source work. These second type of people don't have a vision for what the project should be, they've tacitly accepted whatever the stated goal of the project is. They're just here to get top committer status and add it to their resume. Type A doesn't care if you use their software, except insofar as they can modify it to help you, as a friendly gesture. Type B really wants people to use their software, because the more people know about it, the more their resume shines. The loudest voices calling for people to try Linux once Windows 10 goes EOL are coming from Type B. And also people with a financial interest. Paid distros like Zorin OS are spreading FUD, implying that computers bought more than 3 years ago can't run Windows 11. And here we have LibreOffice, supported by donations from nonprofits, trying to get more users.