Very few OSS projects get popular enough and are structurally amenable to that kind of group contribution scenario. Of those that are, in most cases it results in an unusable hodge podge of crap rather than a well crafted product.
> Very few OSS projects get popular enough and are structurally amenable to that kind of group contribution scenario.
Yes, very few open source projects ever move out of the fringes of relevance. That's always been true. The idea that there has been some radical change making OSS less relevant is just false; what has happened is that OSS has gotten enough mindshare that people who want to use business models that OSS has never been a good fit want to use OSS as an early marketing gimmick, and then pivot out of it without paying a price for not being OSS. And are upset that people who do care about OSS are calling them on their B.S. when they try it.
I think we have a very different view about the goals of OSS then, and I think your idea of its goals is narrower.
I wish all software could be at least source-available and preferably available under even more liberal terms if that could be made to work. That way we could see how things work, learn from things, debug with the benefit of source, port things to different platforms or fix platform problems without waiting for the vendor, contribute if for no other reason than experience, and preserve software after vendors go belly-up without having to resort to emulating old platforms whole cloth.
I also wish there was mainstream adoption of open software for privacy and security reasons. I wish people could use operating systems, web browsers, messengers, and so on whose source could be audited so people could understand privacy implications.
That would all give us more freedom and more transparency, but it also requires a business model to sustain those kinds of projects. As it stands nobody outside geekdom uses open source software because there is no business model to sustain OSS with the degree of polish demanded by end users.
