Is OSS really free, Kernel Developers get paid.
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
What difference does it make whether they are paid or not? In early days of OSS, most were not paid. Later on, RedHat, IBM, Novell etc. started paying them to develop Linux into an enterprise-ready OS (after Linux demonstrated potential to be of use in the enterprise). I will re-iterate that early Linux development was not corporate-funded. Maybe, there will be a slow-down in the development pace, if all the money flow stopped, but I don't foresee a shutdown. In fact, I don't even foresee the money flow stopping. Money starts flowing only when there is *potential*. Linux has definitely shown that. Linux is free, and being free matters to a retail end-user. Whether it benefits corporates is not a problem for me. I like it even more considering that these people are paid for their work. Whoever paid for it can still make money after giving it free to a lot of people like myself. Even with Windows, most of the support comes from the community (than from Microsoft directly) just like with Linux. When a product is free, what is wrong in using a PR campaign that highlights it; or are only the corporates entitled to exaggeration in PR and advertising? Thomas Note: I use Ubuntu Linux 6.10, Windows XP and Mac OS X Tiger, and find the OS wars silly. All these operating systems are good, each better in certain areas than the others.
-------- Micrologic Networks, India
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
The difference is that Linux doesn't cost the end user money, and is included in systems made to closely mimic Unix, which has proven to be a better OS than most. The mentality behind OSS is to let everyone share and have equal input. I remember trying to suggest features for Office 07 and Media player 11 (both of which I like a lot, don't get me wrong here), but never actually getting anywhere beyond "fill out form X, and maybe someone will listen." That's a typical corporate system, which is necessitated by the chain of command and such, which is fine. But when I have a suggestion for something in the OSS world, my ideas get listened to, often with feedback directly from the developers. It feels much better from the perspective of an end user to be able to provide feedback that's genuinely and speedily taken into account. Microsoft's closed system is vastly different -- if there's a bug I happen to notice somewhere, there's no chance for me to help fix it, and if I report it it gets filed somewhere until it gets assigned to be fixed. It's not that no one cares, but it can seem like that given the system that's used, as opposed to having one of the programmers directly tell you that they'll get right on that, or that if you'd like, you can help yourself. Not to mention, there's no EULA with Linux. Now I really don't want to start a holy war here, but I've found Linux OSes to be much superior since I switched (And I used to be very skeptical of Linux). Linux systems are not better in some earth-shatteringly huge way, but rather in a lot of little ways that just make you say, damn, why can Microsoft, or Mac or Sony or anyone for that matter, be a little more like that. I haven't turned into some irrational MS-hater, I still like Windows, and was in many ways impressed by Vista. I don't go around saying, "MS ripped off x feature" or whatever; that's childish. And in the end maybe some people who have money to spare have said, well, those people deserve to be paid for what they're doing, because they're helping us for free. Just because they're getting paid now doesn't tarnish their philosophy or make it any less noble. They need to eat, too.
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
I think that there are more important things in the world to worry about. You paint this like the Soviet Union and the USA in the height of the cold war. Frankly... Who really cares. Enjoy the diversity, use Linux, use Windows and use a Mac. Who cares so long as *you* are happy and paying your bills. I think you miss the major vein of open source in that you can take it and add whatever you want to it. You simply cannot do that with Windows XP, Windows 2000, ME, 98 or NT. Yes there are areas where things may not be how they appear but let me say that in this life if you think anything is ever what it appears you are in for some tough lessons. Enjoy it. Whether it's open source, closed source, limited open source, limited XYZ and PQR source. Just enjoy it. No big deal mon!
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
Don't you think that maybe these spare-time coders were doing such a good job that someone came along and said 'wow, if only you could work on this project full time we'd be able to get improved free software to the masses quicker'. Said spare-time coder might well have responded that he has so far failed to win the lottery and requires an income to survive. Said company could either wait for said developer to win the lottery, or just give him a full time job coding on the OSS project. Developers working for nothing doesn't really define what OSS is, it just happens to be quite prevalent (especially new projects). However the companies paying these developers still have to make money somewhere along the line. So you might have a point, in that these companies might start to resemble traditional software companies more and more as time goes by.
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
-
The difference is that Linux doesn't cost the end user money, and is included in systems made to closely mimic Unix, which has proven to be a better OS than most. The mentality behind OSS is to let everyone share and have equal input. I remember trying to suggest features for Office 07 and Media player 11 (both of which I like a lot, don't get me wrong here), but never actually getting anywhere beyond "fill out form X, and maybe someone will listen." That's a typical corporate system, which is necessitated by the chain of command and such, which is fine. But when I have a suggestion for something in the OSS world, my ideas get listened to, often with feedback directly from the developers. It feels much better from the perspective of an end user to be able to provide feedback that's genuinely and speedily taken into account. Microsoft's closed system is vastly different -- if there's a bug I happen to notice somewhere, there's no chance for me to help fix it, and if I report it it gets filed somewhere until it gets assigned to be fixed. It's not that no one cares, but it can seem like that given the system that's used, as opposed to having one of the programmers directly tell you that they'll get right on that, or that if you'd like, you can help yourself. Not to mention, there's no EULA with Linux. Now I really don't want to start a holy war here, but I've found Linux OSes to be much superior since I switched (And I used to be very skeptical of Linux). Linux systems are not better in some earth-shatteringly huge way, but rather in a lot of little ways that just make you say, damn, why can Microsoft, or Mac or Sony or anyone for that matter, be a little more like that. I haven't turned into some irrational MS-hater, I still like Windows, and was in many ways impressed by Vista. I don't go around saying, "MS ripped off x feature" or whatever; that's childish. And in the end maybe some people who have money to spare have said, well, those people deserve to be paid for what they're doing, because they're helping us for free. Just because they're getting paid now doesn't tarnish their philosophy or make it any less noble. They need to eat, too.
Alrighty, I did not mean, and do not hope to start a flame war. Linux engineering pays my bills. I benefit just as much as the next Joe for all the work that is done by people that make money for companies just by improving linux and other open source software. I guess that the big hang up that I have is the vehemence for which many Linux and OSS enthusiasts have against any closed source software. The support model does not work for everyone. I do not know about you, but I am willing to pay for a good piece of software. I just do not understand why a huge number of distros refuse to include any closed source software in thier releases. It is kinda funny considering that everyone that I know that uses linux turns around and installs all of the codecs so that they can run thier video and play music. Why? because someone has a high horse and is unwilling to accept something that is not free. That is hypocracy. Closed minded to any view that is not open. Thanks for the input though. And I agree, they need to eat too. -------------------------------
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
-
Don't you think that maybe these spare-time coders were doing such a good job that someone came along and said 'wow, if only you could work on this project full time we'd be able to get improved free software to the masses quicker'. Said spare-time coder might well have responded that he has so far failed to win the lottery and requires an income to survive. Said company could either wait for said developer to win the lottery, or just give him a full time job coding on the OSS project. Developers working for nothing doesn't really define what OSS is, it just happens to be quite prevalent (especially new projects). However the companies paying these developers still have to make money somewhere along the line. So you might have a point, in that these companies might start to resemble traditional software companies more and more as time goes by.
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
I guess that I should have been more clear in my original post. I use and am a fan of many open source projects. I use linux and pay my bills by it. There are features that are in the linux desktop that Apple and Microsoft still cannot wrap thier heads around. It is not necessarily the end use or many of the coders of open source. It is the closed minded ones that do not accept any other reality. There was a post by someone previously that said it best. Use it and enjoy it. Write code for it or not, but in the end have fun. ---------------------------------------------------------
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
-
Eric Van Wieren wrote:
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free.
Time and time again, beer != speech. Free != free.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
You have the quote wrong... The concept is that the recipe for beer is free, and that you are there free to make your own. Not that the beer that I make is free, or that the beer that Bob the street makes. But then again, Sam Adams does not have to give thier recipe away with the changes that they made, but hey they base recipe is free. -------------- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
Nothing in this world is free, everything costs something to someone. In the case of OSS, the cost can be to the developers who give their time freely, or to the companies that employ the developers to work on OSS projects. I think it can be a common misconception that OSS equals free. OSS mainly means free in terms of purchasing a licence for the software only. There are always other factors, such as staff training, system maintenance etc. that are costs to the company using the software for example. For projects like the Linux kernel and OpenOffice.org, these are huge projects. Unfortunately, OSS projects of this size also need some money to survive, simply because it is how the world works and to get things done, and I think that we are kind of lucky that there are companies out there that will help fund them. Many companies out there who do produce software as their business would probably be proud to be able to say that their products are managed as well as things like the Linux kernel, OpenOffice.org, KDE, GNOME and many others. I some ways, it is unfortunate that there aren't many more people in the world who are willing to give their time and effort for everyone to benefit, whether it be software development, or something completely different.
------------------------ Luke Lovegrove ------------------------
-
Alrighty, I did not mean, and do not hope to start a flame war. Linux engineering pays my bills. I benefit just as much as the next Joe for all the work that is done by people that make money for companies just by improving linux and other open source software. I guess that the big hang up that I have is the vehemence for which many Linux and OSS enthusiasts have against any closed source software. The support model does not work for everyone. I do not know about you, but I am willing to pay for a good piece of software. I just do not understand why a huge number of distros refuse to include any closed source software in thier releases. It is kinda funny considering that everyone that I know that uses linux turns around and installs all of the codecs so that they can run thier video and play music. Why? because someone has a high horse and is unwilling to accept something that is not free. That is hypocracy. Closed minded to any view that is not open. Thanks for the input though. And I agree, they need to eat too. -------------------------------
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
I'm with you on people stubbornly refusing to use "non-free" software, like RMS, whom I don't really like that much. Eric Raymond, while by no means a fan of Microsoft, I think has it right (or close to right). He switched to Ubuntu because it has the right amount of non-free software (drivers, codecs). I think it's noble to support Free, Open source software, but being an ass about it isn't the way to go. People in both camps need to be more reasonable about the software they use. I also have no problem paying for software if it's damn good software. There's nothing wrong with making a living, just like the kernel devs and some of the KDE people do. I also don't mind the idea of charging for specialty programs (VMs, large business apps, and so on) and support, while maintaining a free version, somewhat like what Red Hat does. At the end of the day, it's all about choice, and I try to respect people's choices. Unless they like Emacs over vi. Then I call them heretics... :laugh:
-
You have the quote wrong... The concept is that the recipe for beer is free, and that you are there free to make your own. Not that the beer that I make is free, or that the beer that Bob the street makes. But then again, Sam Adams does not have to give thier recipe away with the changes that they made, but hey they base recipe is free. -------------- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
Eric Van Wieren wrote:
You have the quote wrong...
I was being brief - as i suspected, you've heard the line before. ;)
Eric Van Wieren wrote:
But then again, Sam Adams does not have to give thier recipe away with the changes that they made, but hey they base recipe is free.
Well, there's the proposed advantage of OSS: that Sam Adams would give away their recipe. If i want a slightly hoppier Boston Lager, i can try to brew my own... but i'd have a lot of work ahead of me just to match what they were already producing, before i could even think about throwing in my own little tweaks. Microsoft makes a fine IDE, but there are things i'd love to improve or fix - however, i'd be looking at months or years of work, just to re-create what's already working, just to fix a tiny problem. Of course, there's nothing in that proposal that says Sam Adams, or Microsoft, or I need to work for free. Just that, when possible, it would be far better to combine talents rather than duplicating effort.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
Eric Van Wieren wrote:
The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue.
Quite a few. It didn't start out being a paid gig. A majority still don't get paid.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
...too purchase XP or Vista versus getting your hands on almost any version of Linux?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
So, over and over again, I hear about how Linux and Open Source Software is free. That would be great if it were true, but this article talks about who paid for the 2.6.20 kernel. From the looks of the article, it would seem that a majority of the developers, the major contributors, are paid to work on and improve the kernel. Tell me, how is this any different than a person working at microsoft on their kernel. The only difference is that it is open to all. It is still the corporate world that benefits. Ok, so we can use it for free for ourselves, and anyone can go in and poke around on it. Wow... that is so great. Mind the sarcasm, but much of the OSS world remind me of nothing more than hypocrits. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I just do not see it that way. The open source developer is potrayed as a person that does most of thier coding in thier off hours. Coding late into the night, and working some corporate job during the day to pay the bills. This article destroys that perception, at least for me. Tie this in with the developers working on Open Office and any number of other projects, and the end result is that they are really slaves to the all mighty dollar. Just like the rest of us. Oh, but they will get on their high horse and talk about how this is for the community. The real question is, if the money quit flowing how much linux development would continue. You see, I may be getting the idea completely wrong, but if it comes down to money, then how is closed source software any different than open source software. Maybe with one I have to pay for it, but wait, we live in a world where people have to pay bills. Craftsmen and tradesmen have been making money for ages selling thier goods. Why is writing software any different. Yes there are developers that right nothing more than forms for databases, but others are artisans, and deserve to profit from their talents. Does this mean that closed source developers should exploit thier customers? Not at all, but they should get paid for the work that they do. I just don't know anymore. --- Eric
It is the nature of man to rise to greatness if greatness is expected of him. - John Steinbeck
They have paid support plans for aspiring enterprises. Am I right?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips