So, I have been around for a while, and seen most of the OSS revolution from the moment that the ASF was born. I have seen things take-off from Hibernate “being adopted” by JPA, and .Net generics being brought into Java… and then bought by Oracle, and Oracle suing a bunch of companies… Let alone all the mess with AWS vs Elastic vs MongoDB and so on and so forth.
So without giving me a lecture on the history of OSS and how it helped move the industry forward (which I know it did!)... the flat, straight-on questions are (and let’s let alone pricing, assume its “free” comparatively to the business you are applying it to):
Are closed-source solutions inherently evil and risk-carrying? Why is that?
Why would you NOT choose a 10x solution for your use case only because it’s not open-source?
I’m very interested in your personal experience and from which angle did you look at it in such a situation (for example: developers unable to run things locally in a light-weight manner -vs- enterprise architects struggling with lock-in concerns).
Your opinion is very important, but real-life examples would mean a world for me to better understand it :)
Absolutely not.
> Why would you NOT choose a 10x solution for your use case only because it’s not open-source?
Because software being open source (in the general sense) gives that software an enormous advantage all by itself. Even if proprietary software is "10x", it's still burdened with the rather large disadvantages of being proprietary.
I buy and use proprietary software, but only when it enables me to accomplish something I can't accomplish with open source software. And even then, I'm keeping an eye out to be able to ditch the proprietary solution as quickly as possible.