The commercialisation of open source has added an instrinsic reason for suckage.
With closed source software the most common model is the license fee. Support calls and interaction with the user is a cost and something to avoid if possible. You polish your code and your interface until the users leave you alone.
With the rise of support-supported open source, the converse is true. You make your money from support, so typically the more polish, the less revenue. This is a fundamentally broken feedback loop IMHO with an intrisinic tension between product quality and cash. You want the product to very nearly work perfectly, but require work to integrate.
I'd say it depends on the support model. If, for instance, you sell support as a yearly subscription, then support calls are a variable cost against a fixed revenue, and so the incentive goes back to creating streamlined and non-confusing UIs to lower support costs. Still, it's a good point.
You're right of course. Except perhaps that quite a few people won't bother with a yearly support contract, if the software is so polished that it doesn't need vendor support.
I;d just like to clarify one thing. I don't think that open source software sucks, I think much of it is excellent, I just think that there is an inherent tension that tends to pull it towards suckage in a purely commercial market.
With closed source software the most common model is the license fee. Support calls and interaction with the user is a cost and something to avoid if possible. You polish your code and your interface until the users leave you alone.
With the rise of support-supported open source, the converse is true. You make your money from support, so typically the more polish, the less revenue. This is a fundamentally broken feedback loop IMHO with an intrisinic tension between product quality and cash. You want the product to very nearly work perfectly, but require work to integrate.