Multiple eyes on code, security, these are things that are great about open source, except they aren't. This is a prime example of how bugs get through anyhow, major bugs. So it is now shown beyond a shadow of anyones doubt, open source is NOT superior in these respects.
Our modern malady is to look at methods, not histories.
Great software comes from great leadership and good-to-great talent. But mostly, it involves someone having a good idea and following it through.
Sometimes, that's a single programmer (Bill Atkinson). Most commonly, it's a group that needs a leader.
The quality of that leader then determines the quality of the product. But both industry and open source find this idea terrifying.
Industry would prefer to avoid this and promote exchangeable, replaceable cogs to the position of program/project manager. These people tend to be aggressive and thoughtless and produce gunk software.
Open source would prefer to avoid it because the big secret in open source is that people do what they want to do, not what needs doing. This is why products usually have the "fun, interesting parts" done but lag behind in the stuff no one finds thrilling, including finishing the boring parts of the code, debugging, documentation, etc.
Leadership is essential. The difference is that in open source, you can't fire people, so you can't tell them what to do.