@pasqui023@Gargron Nothing in that blurb is wrong. It is, after all, why the FOSS community bothered to come up with the Semantic Versioning convention, and a whole ecosystem of tools supporting it.
I think the real issue here is that the blurb, on its own, is somewhat misleading: it implies that there's no support for remediating any incompatibilities that arise (which is, of course, simply not true).
@vertigo @gargron @pasqui023 No, the issue with the blurb is that it implies that this is a problem with free software, rather than a general problem of our systems being so complex that we cannot build them ourselves and need to rely on other people's code.
"build or buy" exists without free software, and choosing how much effort to spend on understanding "bought" (for money or not) code is always a balancing act.
@vertigo @gargron @pasqui023 Perhaps. But can we agree that you can strike every "open source" from the blurb and it will remain just as true? That means that phrase is unnecessary and points fingers in the wrong direction.