- Lack of formal support
- Velocity of change
- Lack of roadmap
- Functional gaps
- Licensing caveats
- ISV endorsements
I agree virtually on all points. In any case I still think that OpenSource vs. Commercial Software is the wrong way to look at the software adoption problem.
The availability of sources is important for many aspects, and I really appreciate that even Microsoft begun to release software open source (I think that Rotor is the open source version of a subset of commercial .NET CLR). But access to source code cannot magically turn bad software into good software (and vice-versa).
So I think that all this fuss about Open Source vs. Microsoft (curious that only MS seems to be releasing non-open source software) is completely wrong in the way it is posed. In particular I'm not sure of the role that IBM, Oracle and other companies are playing about OS: they aren't releasing any core software with sources (AS400, OracleDb, ...). Why these companies should bear the OS flag? Can the OS community live without their help? If not, is really free a community lead by industries?
I would like to add another point to Dan's article: I strongly believe that in the Open Source community there is a significant lack of a component-based infrastructure.