I used closed and open source software. It just feels much better if I see a bug, fix it, place a pull request and be done with it, than discuss with some devs in a bug tracker if and when they want to fix a bug I hate.
It's no surprise that most open source software is clunky and hard to use whereas closed products always have that visual polish.
And often big projects have, similar to closed source software, rather ugly workflows where you have to discuss stuff before you're assigned to a bug and then have to send it patches and what not.
A good review process is important or else everything ends in chaos.
Closed products always have that visual polish
A lot of open/free projects are indeed "hobby" projects (and not in a good way) -- but to claim that all of them are bad? Compared to what? The shareware scene from the 90s?
Creating a Pull Request doesn't mean that the developer of the open source project has to accept it verbatim if it doesn't fit with the 'vision.'
[Also, I'm pretty sure that the parent to your post was talking about bugs that probably don't involve visuals.]
What makes you so sure of that?
> At work that makes little difference to me.
Clearly implying that Open Source is a productivity increase. I am asking why.
I'd put what you're saying in the "warm fuzzy feeling" department as in the real world the majority of developers, even if Sublime Text died, would just sit by patiently and wait for someone else to release a replacement. Most lack the skills, time, or both to develop a project like Sublime Text.
If something breaks or development stalls or he wants new features and the developer has abandoned the project he can then pick it up himself if he wants.
That said, I agree that just because people can contribute to software doesn't mean they will. I'm certainly guilty of just living with bugs or functionality gaps in open source software that I use, lazily waiting for someone else to address it the same way I would if it were something developed privately.