The only argument I don't buy was #3. The whole write shitty code so that you can get paid for support. If your code is really that bad then who would want it in the first place? The ideal get paid for support scenario is where you write good easy to use code, large corps pay for huge support contracts then never or rarely needs to use them. It scales much better than the working your butt off to fix everyone in the worlds problems but only for them so the next guy will pay for support too plan. That also misses the get paid for custom development on top of a foss base system.
As far as #4 goes you waffle quite badly on that one.
seeded with corporate or taxpayer's money. and relies on corporate and taxpayer money to sustain itself. Are two different things entirely. Yes many successful projects got started as government and corporate projects, and the largest most successful do survive on corporate benevolence, but there are plenty of good projects that did start but don't sustain themselves on those sources.
Because you get locked into FOSS software due to licenses (GPL vs BSD) or system specifics that would entail more money to port than simply maintain (scripts, features, etc). Now you have to maintain the software and issues that come with the system as a whole (security, stability, etc) or you can buy a support contract and have a corporation support your FOSS lock-in. Kind of makes you think doesn't it?
As far as #4 goes you waffle quite badly on that one. seeded with corporate or taxpayer's money. and relies on corporate and taxpayer money to sustain itself. Are two different things entirely. Yes many successful projects got started as government and corporate projects, and the largest most successful do survive on corporate benevolence, but there are plenty of good projects that did start but don't sustain themselves on those sources.