Quite some shift having worked mainly at companies that were open source-centric before, now at one that endorses proprietary enterprise platforms.
I have found that latter such companies don't recognize open source efforts and startup solutions. It is a mystery (to them, at least) how Twitter has managed so far with obscure languages like Ruby and Scala. It must be a joke to claim Google used commodity hardware for their servers. When you have a USD 30K DBMS you have no reason to consider NoSQL toys.
Whereas at my previous workplaces we would probably be rolling our eyes, thinking why we would ever need it, when offered, say, a USD 30K DBMS when we ran everything on PostgreSQL just fine. Yahoo! did it with PostgreSQL, why couldn't we, right? We could implement Hadoop and Cassandra for specific tasks if they fit better than they would on PostgreSQL. If everything were still slow, it would be the development team's fault, of course. Couldn't have it any other way because, otherwise, why hire us at all.
But of course, experience will vary depending on how one makes use of either technology. Many proprietary products do excel at what they do. And it is only natural that people spend money on these works. I'd think the distinction is that at one (extreme) end you see lots of money and at the other (extreme) end you feel a great deal of passion (and both are perhaps equally reliable catalysts of creativity). This isn't a rant on merits of either practice--not that I have authority on that topic to begin with!
What this is about is how easily we turn a blind eye to the other side when we've been delving in just one side of the equation for long.
