>Guaranteed updates/bug fixes

Such a bold statement. Numerous times paid software produced errors, which went unfixed until the product was discontinued and then you had to buy a new version.

I think "Guaranteed" was a bad choice, but I'm sure it's still better on average than the majority of free/OSS projects.

Unfortunately there will always be a small number of companies using scummy tactics like that, but not most of them.

Also documentation, when it exists (not all apps have or need it) tend to actually be useful instead of a half-assed, incomplete wiki.

(though some paid software in the recent years also have half-assed, incomplete wikis for documentation... my guess is that the proliferation of open source software made a lot of newer developers think that this is how software is supposed to be documented)

Definitely. As someone that helps write wiki content for a open source project it's quite a bit of work, for little-to-no recognition, so I can understand why that happens. Plus you don't know if anyone even ends up reading it.

I still do it because of passion for the project, but it would certainly be easier to be paid for it!