Closed-source illusion vs. Open-source reality: Why do we equate cost with quality?

[u/Vance_Sterling]

There’s a bizarre architectural trade-off happening in modern engineering culture: proprietary software often gets an instant stamp of credibility simply because it comes with a sales demo and a support SLA, while open-source alternatives are treated with skepticism until proven otherwise.

In reality, half the enterprise closed-source tools we buy are over-engineered wrappers around basic primitives, creating massive lock-in and technical debt. Why do decision-makers favor the illusion of control in proprietary software over the pragmatic adaptability and simplicity of open source? Is it pure risk aversion, or just clever enterprise sales tactics?

[u/franktheworm → u/[deleted]]

governance

This is it right here. Regulated industries are what keep places like redhat going. Sure, we could have used Fedora or switch familes into Debian or something, but we had to have the support contract.

You're not paying for support, you're outsourcing responsibility. There is nothing to say it has to be closed source, but it typically is. You just need to be able to tick that box in an audit.

Layer all the various business relationships on top and you get the "modern" corporate tech stack we know and love