No to criticise the entire article, there are valid points but it leads to invalid conclusions.
TL;DR: same arguments can be said of closed source projects.
open source software adoption continues to grow inside IT organizations because of its price tag: it’s free.
- Not all OSS is free (gratis). Even if it was, it wouldn’t be used if the software did not solve organizations/users needs.
- Yes, it can reduce costs, but could also have associated training costs for people used to other solutions, but we must not forget about long term costs.
- Other known benefits of FOSS (code review, no lock in, &c.)
The cost you pay for OSS is the possibility of failure and a lack of support to help you fix problems.
- Both, closed source and OSS, have the possibility of failure.
- Lack of support would depend on each product (being OSS or not).
- Having good support, shitty support or no support at all is not directly related to OSS neither closed source software.
I don’t see the point in Coinbase example. I had no knowledge of the outages, but linked comments are not taken into consideration in the article. As described in the article the problem seemed to be more of a planning issue (same happens with non OSS).
In the case of paid software, vulnerabilities can still be discovered and patched by the vendor’s team of engineers and quality assurance.
- Again when the article says paid software it refers to closed source paid software.
- If the vendor has those teams and can (or is willing to) afford its costs. The vendor can also put backdoors or hidden features for some purpose (IIRC recently the case of flight sim), or have internally known but undisclosed security holes… or use bad coded workarounds done in a hurry that no one will notice when (not)reading the code.
When a problem arises, whether it be security-related or performance-related, commercial vendors provide support for companies using their software.
- Or performance related issues could be introduced by the vendor to force its clients to spend more money.