In the context of FOSS adherents in general, the belief is that a rising tide lifts all boats: that the work of one dedicated open source hobbyist auditing CGM code for flaws would benefit all CGM users one way or another, if I apply that general principle here as a specific example. However, the characteristic of shoddy UX is loosely correlated with how much the developer(s) choose to (and can afford to) spend developing their work, not with whether the work is open or closed source. The exact balance shifts over time based on cultural-economic shifts in both developer capability (“what’s a folder? does left-click mean I have to use my left hand?”) and in free time energy (“I did so many hours at work to afford rent/food next week that I have no energy left to care about PRs”).

In any case, I agree that the post falls quite flat at being effective advocacy here; to me, not because it clamors for “terrible UX”, but because it fails to make a case that the author’s desired FOSS outcome holds any value at all for those who don’t know or care about source code. It’s certainly a horror story but I’m quite inured to horror as a sales tactic, and that’s where it drops the ball.