>Open-source does not and will never scale, because software is orders of magnitude too complex
But there are examples of long-time open source projects all over the place. This sounds like an argument for open source.
If you work for a for-profit company you face two different problems: overnight the company can disappear, and the IP is lost/locked forever; problems are only ever fixed if there's a profit incentive. That works, a lot, but it's not perfect either.
Mind you I'm not talking of open-source vs commercial, or other types of governance. I'm talking more abstractly about the fact that having source available and open contributions does not noticeably increase the amount of bugs fixed.
It's a discussion about software complexity and logistics of distributed bugfixing, not organisational.
You said “does not noticeably increase”; you need a reference point for “increase”. If you’re not comparing open source to other types of governance, then what are you comparing it to?
But there are examples of long-time open source projects all over the place. This sounds like an argument for open source.
If you work for a for-profit company you face two different problems: overnight the company can disappear, and the IP is lost/locked forever; problems are only ever fixed if there's a profit incentive. That works, a lot, but it's not perfect either.