This post is so interesting to me, esp. the build-vs-buy spectrum.
As Dan notes, a lot of software is just...not very good. It either isn't upfront with flaws (as in the case of the Postgres -> Snowflake tool), has too much scope, or is abstracted poorly. Finding things to buy/use (as in the case of open source) can often eat a lot more time than you anticipate.
I've been dipping my toes into the JS ecosystem, and I keep bumping into the fact that using mentally cheap signals of quality (such as stars or DL counts) almost never indicates the quality of the thing itself. Winners seem to be randomly chosen, almost! The only way to assess is to read the code and try integrating it in.
I'd go farther to argue that the larger an ecosystem/market is, the more untrustworthy it behaves as a whole, simply due to the size, and the types of people attracted to it who want to get influence/money. See also: appliances that everyone needs.
As Dan notes, a lot of software is just...not very good. It either isn't upfront with flaws (as in the case of the Postgres -> Snowflake tool), has too much scope, or is abstracted poorly. Finding things to buy/use (as in the case of open source) can often eat a lot more time than you anticipate.
I've been dipping my toes into the JS ecosystem, and I keep bumping into the fact that using mentally cheap signals of quality (such as stars or DL counts) almost never indicates the quality of the thing itself. Winners seem to be randomly chosen, almost! The only way to assess is to read the code and try integrating it in.
I'd go farther to argue that the larger an ecosystem/market is, the more untrustworthy it behaves as a whole, simply due to the size, and the types of people attracted to it who want to get influence/money. See also: appliances that everyone needs.