I suspect that even a NASA or an Apple or a Google or some other social structure would make a product with some painfully bad parts lurking somewhere in it.
I further suspect that the difference is, with open source code, the "general" public is actually able to become aware of it, rather than just the engineers working on it.
EDIT: Actually, before I forget, I heard a great aphorism the other day: When designing (distributed) computer systems, try designing it as if each "node" were an actual human. That'll usually ferret out most of the flaws in your reasoning. (No, it's obviously not foolproof, it's basically just a sanity check against assuming absolute reliability, etc. Kill cats. It's a rhetorical device meant to make you think. So think. Hey, do you own thinking. I can't think for all of you. Live your own lives!)
I know we engineers are getting high on it, but if you remove complex components, everyone else is much happier.
Really good complex systems thus, are seemingly simple systems, that cover with stupid components a suprisingly big number of uses-cases.
My argument is that there is no organizational structure that is more likely to product and maintain such a system.
People identify the bad parts of an open-source project and say "See? This is why we need Serious Engineers|Business Acumen|etc". Meanwhile, the bad parts of private project simply aren't made public.