I'm really not swayed by "we must use this turd because the alternative is nothing". "Nothing", to me, is a technical challenge and a sign I should probably start writing the thing myself.
Yes, not everyone has the skill or time to do that, but it's also no reason to accept half-baked solutions that don't take the user's system resources into account. Compute may be cheap but it's still a resource we need to use wisely. Not everyone is running a system like the developer's Macbook Pros on 5GHz wifi hooked up to fiber.
If you only care about the best technical solution, and don't care about economics, then you almost, by definition, only care about what existing FOSS users are doing, and I don't find that scope limitation useful in any way. I love FOSS. I've been a regular contributor to FOSS for decades. But the impact user-facing FOSS apps have on the overwhelming majority of users is miniscule, as is the comparative number of regular FOSS users. Server apps? Apps developers use to make the apps everyone else uses? Absolutely. A music player? A chat app? Nope. Software that makes a visible impression on users is commercial. That's just reality. And companies that don't consider ROI on the products they create aren't companies very long.
The most popular as-is FOSS app for users is probably Firefox with a browser market share neck-and-neck with Opera and Samsung Internet, and everything less popular might as well not exist among probably 99% of users. Why? It's certainly not performance, I assure you. It's because it's poorly designed and users find it infuriating to use. Sure, you can find people complaining about their bloated slack client being slow on their machine. You think that's bad, find a professional photographer and ask them about the one time they tried to use Gimp.
I spend a lot of time talking about how FOSS could be a lot more usable to end users, and technical supremacy isn't it. If you showed your average end user an electron app with an intuitive, professional design that gets the job done well enough, and then you show them the blazing fast linux native version with a typically awkward homespun interface, I will eat my hat if they don't choose the electron version. Sure, in a perfect world, all tools would be forged specifically for their intended purpose. In reality, you are in a miniscule percentage of people that would rather have nothing than something which doesn't perform optimally because of it's bonkers architecture. But if you actually want to maximize the usability of any giving tool, the only reason developers automatically go to performance is because to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Yes, not everyone has the skill or time to do that, but it's also no reason to accept half-baked solutions that don't take the user's system resources into account. Compute may be cheap but it's still a resource we need to use wisely. Not everyone is running a system like the developer's Macbook Pros on 5GHz wifi hooked up to fiber.