It's worth noting that open source isn't directly at odds with commercial funding. There are lots of open source products out there like Android, GitLab, Nextcloud, IntelliJ,and many others that are developed commercially, but also have an open source core. I think that's a good model since it ensures that the project has funding for full time development and polish, while also leaving the option for the users to take the source and fork it if the product goes in a direction they don't like. Another approach is open source foundations like Firefox or Linux foundation, and donations funded projects like Mastodon. All of these are solid and polished pieces of software.
If syncthing got abandoned then the source is still going to be there, and if there's a community of users around it then development can be picked up by somebody else. This happens all the time in open source world. I already gave GNOME as an example of a project where the original project went in a directions users didn't agree with, and now there are forks of it with Mate and Cinnamon that went their own way.
Meanwhile, if syncthing was a closed source product and the company went under, that would be the end of it definitively. The users would be hung out to dry, and there would be no possibility to adapt it to new OSes, or platforms. It would just be dead.
And syncthing is clearly meant for use cases where you're sharing files between personal devices. However, Nextcloud is a great answer for professional environment. In fact it's so great that German Federal Administration relies on it https://nextcloud.com/blog/german-federal-administration-rel...
So, I don't actually see any significant limits in open source compared to commercial software. There are some trade offs, but open source has certainly been demonstrated to work well in a very wide variety of environments including enterprise and consumer products.
And the core point here is that open source leaves uses with more options than commercial software. Yes, projects can move in new directions, become abandoned, and so on. However, there is at least the possibility of users being able to keep using the version of the project they like, and that's what's missing with closed source software.
If syncthing got abandoned then the source is still going to be there, and if there's a community of users around it then development can be picked up by somebody else. This happens all the time in open source world. I already gave GNOME as an example of a project where the original project went in a directions users didn't agree with, and now there are forks of it with Mate and Cinnamon that went their own way.
Meanwhile, if syncthing was a closed source product and the company went under, that would be the end of it definitively. The users would be hung out to dry, and there would be no possibility to adapt it to new OSes, or platforms. It would just be dead.
And syncthing is clearly meant for use cases where you're sharing files between personal devices. However, Nextcloud is a great answer for professional environment. In fact it's so great that German Federal Administration relies on it https://nextcloud.com/blog/german-federal-administration-rel...
So, I don't actually see any significant limits in open source compared to commercial software. There are some trade offs, but open source has certainly been demonstrated to work well in a very wide variety of environments including enterprise and consumer products.
And the core point here is that open source leaves uses with more options than commercial software. Yes, projects can move in new directions, become abandoned, and so on. However, there is at least the possibility of users being able to keep using the version of the project they like, and that's what's missing with closed source software.