So I'm assuming your definition of an amateur is someone that doesn't work for a big corporation, and a professional is someone that does? You realize there are plenty of amateurs in big corporations, and plenty of professionals that are either out of work or at positions in smaller companies. And if you're implying that, because open source software is somehow "worse" (subjective to begin with; there are plenty of arguments to that alone), that the people who make it must be amateurs, then you're affirming the consequent; there are plenty of other reasons that open source software could be "bad" that have nothing to do with the capability (or lack thereof) of the programmers (not to mention that there are plenty of reasons why software could be "good," despite having amateurs programming it).I love your implication that amateurs that get paid are any less amateur.
Open Source Software is *always* worse than Commercial. We know this to be a fact by the virtue of Windows' complete and unchallenged dominance.