This is a highly dubious claim. First off the commercial software industry would just migrate to Linux, just like it does any high volume platform it can make money off of.
Secondly, and this opinion might not be popular but... I for one have yet to be convinced that open source software is "better" quality wise by definition. Yes much of it is as good as commercial products, much of it isn't. I still feel that a controlled, well selected development team working in a proper environment that encourages good communication will be more productive than a loosely tied group effort. The latter often suffers from a lack of clear goals and direction, sadly. Not that it CAN'T be done, but I'm not yet convinced it's a given that open source = better quality by default. Either side of the coin can produce quality, and crap. :)
Offhand, I’d have to say the amount of bad/good software is similar to what exists commercially. The difference is that a lot of commercial software is either enterprise and hidden, or so obscure nobody cares.
“Better” often refers to better designed, however, and a lot of OSS projects are actively hostile to any one creative vision that would shape the interface.
This is a highly dubious claim. First off the commercial software industry would just migrate to Linux, just like it does any high volume platform it can make money off of.
Secondly, and this opinion might not be popular but... I for one have yet to be convinced that open source software is "better" quality wise by definition. Yes much of it is as good as commercial products, much of it isn't. I still feel that a controlled, well selected development team working in a proper environment that encourages good communication will be more productive than a loosely tied group effort. The latter often suffers from a lack of clear goals and direction, sadly. Not that it CAN'T be done, but I'm not yet convinced it's a given that open source = better quality by default. Either side of the coin can produce quality, and crap. :)
Just my 2c.