I didn't see the original query but I have added a couple of thoughts:
At around 11/10/06 6:06 pm, Leigh Meyers wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
>> how does this sound? is it accurate?
>>
>>> the production of Linux and other open-source software is done
>>> entirely by volunteer labor. People work on Linux because it gives
>>> them the kind of artisanal pleasure that [William] Morris emphasizes.
>>> In addition, they often do it because of their antagonism toward
>>> Microsoft products. Linux is currently used on many computer network
>>> servers and in the TiVo digital video recorder, though usually with a
>>> commercially-produced (for-profit) interface. <
>
It would be useful to know what the original author meant here by Linux:
just the modern Linux thing (which is a multi-headed beast what with
IBM, Google and Novell and everyone's uncle throwing code into it), or
GNU/Linux, with emphasis on GNU? Antagonism towards MS products makes it
sound like some sort of churlishness. It's a more principled position
than that.
When talking about open source development, in general, what is the
alternate analysis? For whatever bits of software I have put out there,
or contributed to, what am I supposed to be motivated by, other than
some pleasure in the coding and sharing?
> Maybe the the spirit lives on with OS kernel and module developers, but
> there's bucks in porting applications to linux and I suspect that the
> people on that end of the 'buss' are motivated by the same issues that
> motivate FreeBSD, Sun, and SCO developers. $$$.
This is more than a bit unfair to FreeBSD submitters, at least one of
whom I happen to know. There may be a bit of $ in it (tangentially), but
definitely no $$$. And these guys can make $$$$ if that was their big
motivation. SCO of course are scum! ;-)
Not speaking to Leigh or particular people here: I never quite
understand why the economics left cannot come to terms with open source?
Is it because of the libertarian tendencies of some in the OSS
community? Is it because the OSS model is ultimately utopian/infeasible?
Or is it because they have unknowingly accepted the
capitalism/selfish-gene narrative?
--ravi
