It's a matter of perspectives. The article author's one is that of taste. The bazaar folks' (including web startup folks)is that of practicality. To illustrate using the same example from the piece - so what if a bunch of crypto code is copy / pasted? It's all out in the open - if anyone ever comes up with an actual problem with the code copy / paste, how hard can it be to fix it?
Matter of the fact is that the world doesn't have a critical mass of people with agreeing tastes and fundamentals to get them to come together and build something moderately complex.
What we do have however is a world full of reasonable people who just want to build something and make it work so they can solve some problem of theirs. There are also people who will happily reuse what the folks before them built - improving it in the process.
If we were to impose a high barrier to entry for people to code and design systems in absolute best possible way - we are effectively saying only a few will build software for the whole world. That'd be a net loss IMHO.
The point about bad design is worth arguing when software doesn't do what you want it to do, i.e. fails practice. But that is mitigated by the fact that individual stall in the bazaar does enforce some design, some testing, some sort of sanity to ensure it at least works most of the times.
Is it a sad situation - yes, we would be much better off with every programmer being perfect. But so long as that is impractical the bazaar alternative works in creating tons of fixable, mostly usable, continuously improved software - for which I can hardly call it a lost cause.