Basically, the open source ethos is that you modify core code only as a last resort, but do customizations via modules and add-ons, solving what you call a major flaw.

And, if you modify the core code, the hope is that it should be good enough (and important enough) to eventually make it back into the core.

Oh god yes. Thank you for helping me articulate it.

Paying for software doesn’t guarantee that its “hidden” cost of ownership will be lower than that of FOSS. Far from it — in commercial software, bug fixes often play second fiddle to feature “enhancements.”

There is a little of that in this thread:
http://drupal.org/node/237682#comment-925238

The home-hobbyist FOSS user frequently thinks of “free as in kittens” from the standpoint of a child or single adult, not from the standpoint of an employer or business owner who really understands what total cost of ownership means. Most of all, FOSS publishing software is dominated by (again, young, single) people in the affluent parts of the world (i.e., the USA) who socialize and gain esteem by spending insane amounts of time coding, designing, and writing through a blog or CMS or forum. (I note that there seems to be a prevalence of Asian, Indonesian, Indian, and East European involvement in the robust commercial developer market that the Joomla CMS has acquired. )

***The “free” software is an extension of themselves and a symbol of their freedom.***

They pay greatly to use this software but do not want to pay direct monetary costs because this forces them to think in more grown up terms, as it were, and prolonging the magic of adolescence/childish bliss is their defining trait.

This is also a strategy of America’s favorite past-time–denying class consciousness, avoiding awarenss of class stratification, living a head-down passive-aggressive consumer’s existence that sublimates resentment and confusion into blogging, even thinking that this will somehow change the world. People were saying that stuff when Clinton was president. What does that tell you?

Let’s be real–the twit/ter culture is the kidult culture, and it’s rather pathologically self-disenfranchising. Everyone can use twitter, few vote, nobody knows jack about their city, county, and state politics or the “information systems” that make them run/fail to run.

As long as young fools in decadent, declining empires keep making money for the employer class, only cranks like me will say it’s not a good thing.

The “no support” myth is very prevelent as well. Vendors of proprietary softeware will tell you that open source software has no support. This of course is rubbish. I use Wordpress for my web site and if something goes wrong with it, there are millions of users world wide who can offer me solutions, and because we all have access to the code each one of us can analise the problem, edit the code to fix it and distribute the code to fellow users without ever having to deal with the ‘owner’ of the software.
If you think proprietary software has better support think of those people who had databases written in Fox Pro, a product that was bought by Microsoft with the prime purpose of removing it as a market competitor.

This may be true, but I’ve seen my share of occasions where poor planning put people in what is affectionately called “open source hell.” The “free” aspect of open source is definitely a draw to the neophyte; that doesn’t mean that proprietary is the only way to go afterwards.

One thing I note, however, is that proprietary software seems to require roughly the same amount of geek to install and maintain — and it’s very possible you’ll hit problems that you simply can’t solve without feeding up the proprietary food chain.

Compare OpenOffice/NeoOffice and MS Office/iWork. They’re both exceedingly standard installs, and to maintain it, you just do updates. Problem solved.

Now compare IIS and Apache. IIS may come magically installed (and probably running) on your Windows Server, so you do have some smartness requirements to install Apache (not much, though). If you want either of them to just serve up static files, they’re equally easy to use. If you want them to do anything fancy, they’re both a pain in their own unique ways. The difference is that if you *really* want Apache to do something, you guarantied can get there. If you *really* want IIS to do something, you may be SOL unless MSFT says you can.