You start your question by writing:
"I am not talking about the creators of those projects, of course they get fame, but I am talking about the industry in general, why are we so fond of the open source concept when it brings so many bad impact to the industry?"
But of course, it is precisely the creators of the open source software that matter: if they didn't write and release the code, it wouldn't exist; and if they do, it does, no matter what anyone else may wish. And many — I would say, if not all, then almost all — of them get more than fame out of it.
Of course, some people get money from writing open source, either directly (e.g. they write the software and then sell support for it) or indirectly because they work for a company that pays them to write it (which generally means the company is getting something more than fame out of it). But a lot of open source software is written for the writer's own use, by people who just want to "scratch an itch": they derive utility just from the existence of the software, and any improvements to it made by others are just bonus on top of that.
For example, let's say I want a blog. And let's say I want my blog to have some set of features that no existing free blog software provides out of the box (because then I could just download the software and install it and be done).
One thing I could do would be to buy a closed-source blogging platform, if there was a suitable one on the market, and maybe pay the people selling it extra to add the features I need. However, since I happen to know some Perl and PHP myself, I have a few more options:
I could write my own blog software from scratch, and keep it to myself.
I could write my own blog software from scratch, and release it as open source.
I could download an open-source blogging platform and add the features I need myself (and, if I want and/or the license requires me to, release the additions as open source).
(Of course, if my own programming skills weren't good enough, or if I felt I was too busy to waste my time on such work, I could also choose to hire someone else to do any of these things.)
Obviously, the last option is likely to be the easiest of the three, if there's any existing open source software that even gets close to what I need. But even if there isn't, why would I choose option 1 over option 2?
Keep in mind that I have no interest in selling blogs or blogging software to other people — that's tedious and boring work, and it's not the business I'm in. All I want is a blog for myself that has the set of features I need. Nor do I lose anything if someone else uses the same software to make their own blog; if anything, if their blog is interesting, I've just gained something to read. So going with option 1 gains me nothing over option 2.
On the other hand, if I choose option 2 and someone else decides to use the software for their blog, they're likely to want some features I didn't bother to put in. And, if they implement those features and release them (either because my license requires them to, or just because they reasoned the same way as I did), then I might find some of them useful for my blog too, after all. And maybe they'll also find some bugs that I missed and fix them, which means I get the fix too for pretty much free.
So, that's why the open source economy works. It's not about unpaid developers writing software they don't need and then giving it away "just for fame". Rather, it's about people writing software that's useful for them and sharing it with others so that those others can in turn share their improvements to it with them.