--[The reason open source is inherently better, is that its development infrastructure is set up to encourage dialogue between the author and users,]--

Normally the author either doesn't answer e-mails or tells you it's a problem with "your selection of installed libraries", or says something like "It's really Simple: all you do is recompile X, Y, Z and the Linux kernel, but be sure to rewrite them first to make my software work."

How can developers form a judgement on open source software when many have little or no experience of it, let alone its quality.
In my aerospace company, despite having several (10+) experienced programmers, none have any knowledge of php, and most of them had never heard of regex. Another equated free with rubbish, despite the open source tool I recommended having a unix pedigree.
The reason open source is inherently better, is that its development infrastructure is set up to encourage dialogue between the author and users, ie bug reporting is actively encouraged so defects can be quickly rectified. Commercial companies rarely encourage this interaction with their customers (although they're happy to take their money), and almost never publish a list of outstanding bugs.