Who pays for free software development?

[tsali]

This is a question that I've never gotten an entirely satisfactory answer to.

Who pays for free software development?

Clearly, the people writing this code are wearing clothes, eating food, living somewhere and using computer and network resources.

It would appear that they must be living off of their own or someone else's dime.

If you are developing as a hobby, your job finances development.
If you develop at school, taxpayers or others who receive commercial income are financing your endeavors. If you develop at your company, your employer is financing you work. If you receive donations for your work, you are essentially being "paid", regardless of what you call it.

If free software is only free (as in beer) because it's ultimately financed by the commercial labor of themselves or others, then why the negative attitudes toward capitalism and free market economics so frequently demonstrated by free software advocates?

Don't worry...I expect this one to end in recurring discussions...

[earthpigg]

IBM contributed $1bn several years back. mostly for their supercomputer/mainfraim business, but some of those improvements are/where bound to make their way to you and me on our desktops.

some Novell employees are significant contributors to the kernel as well.

OpenOffice.org exists so the company behind it can add a few proprietary features and sell it as StarOffice.

Firefox exists because the only way netscape could afford to be competative with IE was by being rebranded and open sourced.

in the case of Firefox:

"In 2006 the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues, of which $61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties"."

"Mozilla has a contract with a search engine provider for royalties. The contract originally expired in November 2006, however Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and has now renewed the contract through 2011[3] . Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing

[az]

This is a question that I've never gotten an entirely satisfactory answer to.

Who pays for free software development?

It depends on who needs the software. Whether a software developer works for a comapny that sells proprietary code or one that uses/writes free software, that software developer still gets paid for their days' work.

Only a small percentage of people who work as software developers work for a sold-over-the-shelf software product. Most software developers work for in-house projects which do not fall under the proprietary software model.



If free software is only free (as in beer) because it's ultimately financed by the commercial labor of themselves or others, then why the negative attitudes toward capitalism and free market economics so frequently demonstrated by free software advocates?


I would hardly say that the attitude you describe is frequently demonstrated by advocates of software freedom.

[simtaalo]

around 70% of patches contributed to the kernel is done by people as their "hobby"

[gnomeuser]

around 70% of patches contributed to the kernel is done by people as their "hobby"

You are wrong:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/02/who_writes_the.html

At the most, unpaid people without corporate affiliations make up just under 30%

In reality, Free Software is largely big business these days. Red Hat e.g. has hundreds of people working fulltime on producing Free Software (which is why the majority of the kernel and much of the GCC+Glibc+binutils toolchain, X and GNOME is attributed to RH employees). In return Red Hat makes their money selling support contracts and specialized development (say if your company needs a Linux driver for your gadget, RH can be contracted to do that work for you and make sure the code gets upstream thus lessening your burden). This is big money, they are one of the fastest growing IT companies around (http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/24/fastest-growing-technology-tech-fasttech08-cx_jr_pm_0124fastintro.html).

You might be fine with a free Ubuntu CD and the support you can get on the forums, companies need someone they can call, who can debug issues with them (often without looking at the source code mind you). If your business depends on your servers having 5x9 uptime (99.999%) then you want someone you can call regardless of what time it is and have the issue resolved now.

Aside that there is money in certification, look at how much it costs to be certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer but having papers to prove your skills is valuable (in fact RHCE is one of the most requested certications today).

Big business pays for Free Software development, and business is good.

(I use RH as the example, most other big contributors to Linux as the same model, Novell e.g. does the exact same thing)

[Sealbhach]

around 70% of patches contributed to the kernel is done by people as their "hobby"

That's amazing really. Many hands make Linux work.


.

[Johnsie]

Some projects get alot of funding and support, others get none. That's why there's such a stark difference between the quality of some open source applications.

[saulgoode]

You are wrong:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/02/who_writes_the.html

At the most, unpaid people without corporate affiliations make up just under 30%
Mr Kroah-Hartman's report (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php) equates having a corporate affiliation with being compensated by that company for the submission of kernel patches. This is a dubious inference.

[glotz]

why the negative attitudes toward capitalism and free market economics so frequently demonstrated by free software advocates?I missed that poll.

[Sporkman]

I think mostly the seeming commie sentiment here is towards intellectual property, not capitalism & the free market in general, though there are commies here as well.

Plus the membership here is very international, and world political sentiment seems to be to the left of average US political sentiment (IMO).

Here's a funny poll:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=744750

For (plenty) more reading on this topic here, do a search for "socialism".

This concludes my rambling, unfocused post.

[koenn]

If you are developing as a hobby, your job finances development.
...
If free software is only free (as in beer) because it's ultimately financed by the commercial labor of themselves or others, then why the negative attitudes toward capitalism and free market economics so frequently demonstrated by free software advocates?

Being free as in free beer is not an essential quality of free software; the "free" in free software only refers to freedom, and nothing else. So the contradiction between "free software" and being financed, is something you made up. It doesn't exist outside your head. Your link between this non-existing contradiction on one hand and communist sympathies or anti -free market sentiments on the other, is therefore also meaningless.
You have no point, just a mess of words.

In a similar way, you seem to construe having a job and having a hobby as "being paid by your employer for your hobby activities"

your logic needs serious work.

[ubuntu27]

Nooow, it is time to educate ourselves by reading :)
I will provide some links that will help some of you (Specially the OP) about the term "Free Software"

"The Free Software Definition" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Can we sell Free Software? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)



Extra articles:

Your Freedom Needs Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html)

Why Software Should Not Have Owners (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)


The Right to Read: (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) A Dystopian Short Story.



Want to learn more? Go here (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html)

[happysmileman]

Canonical fund full time developers because it's profitable, they sell technical support and stuff.

Or A lot of developers do it as a hobby, or while in college so they can put it on their resume. They might have full time jobs and contribute mainly on weekends, so in this case no-one pays them for it.

[Sporkman]

We should note, though, that the likes of Red Hat, Canonical, etc, are not necessarily economically self sufficient, as their products were, at least partially, created via free (uncompensated) labor. At least portion of these FOSS products development were done by volunteers, who were able to do so because they were supported by "day jobs".

So I would say the economic model of FOSS is partially commercial, partially philanthropic.

Discuss.

[simtaalo]

You are wrong:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/02/who_writes_the.html

At the most, unpaid people without corporate affiliations make up just under 30%


got the figure from a greg hartman talk http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3385088017824733336

the people may have corporate jobs but i think the point was that wasn't their main line of work, so it is "extra".

[phrostbyte]

Red Hat
IBM
Novell
Intel
AMD
Broadcom
Marvell
ARM
Madriva
TurboLinux
The Linux Foundation
Apple
Canonical
Software in the Public Interest
Free Software Foundation
United States Government
- National Science Foundation
- The Department of Defense
-- DARPA
-- National Security Agency
-- DACS
The government of China
- Red Flag Linux
- Unified Linux Kernel
The government of Germany
- BerliOS
The government of France
The government of the United Kingdom
The government of Argentina
The United Nations through UNESCO

+ 100s of other organizations

What happens though is most of this organizations contribute a little bit to FOSS, but together it amounts to a massive amount of work. Now add just regular people on the Internet doing FOSS in their free time (just like we are talking in this forum with no commercial reason). Basically FOSS is the world writing software.

This is a cool commercial that describes this idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwL0G9wK8j4

[phrostbyte]

We should note, though, that the likes of Red Hat, Canonical, etc, are not necessarily economically self sufficient, as their products were, at least partially, created via free (uncompensated) labor. At least portion of these FOSS products development were done by volunteers, who were able to do so because they were supported by "day jobs".

So I would say the economic model of FOSS is partially commercial, partially philanthropic.

Discuss.

Yes FOSS involves philanthropic and commercial, but also governmental interests.

[ugm6hr]

then why the negative attitudes toward capitalism and free market economics so frequently demonstrated by free software advocates?

eh?

FOSS software that costs nothing to use is able to generate an income stream in the same way that free (as in beer) closed-source software can.

Google is a good example of income generation using free (as in beer) software that falls into open and closed source models (mainly closed).

The benefit of open sourcing is that it allows bugs to be fixed by anyone. Nevertheless, most developers are still paid for their time.

[ubuntu27]

Broadcom
Marvell




This is a cool commercial that describes this idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwL0G9wK8j4


Broadcom contributes to Free Software? Really!? I keep reading everywhere about their lack of support for their Network Cards in Linux.
I am stunned. Can you give a link to a site that list some of their contributions?

[MisfitI38]

We all pay for it, very dearly, I am afraid...unless your time is free.
Mine surely is not.

[tsali]

I am absolutely well versed in the "freedom" part of free software. It is the insistance on the free "beer" part...

I have noticed a tendency on the part of many to express a disgust at those who attempt to repackage and charge for "free" software.

Also, if you are working on code as a "hobby", it means the physical energy you are exerting to do so is being provided by other means...like you your job.

When asked about th advantages of linux, being free (as in beer) is top of the list, while Windows is often castigated for being expensive.

There is a cost for everything in the universe...it just comes down to who is paying it.

As I suspected, most indicate that most "free" software largely exists because of commercial enterprise seeking to capitalize on it.

[phrostbyte]

Broadcom contributes to Free Software? Really!? I keep reading everywhere about their lack of support for their Network Cards in Linux.
I am stunned. Can you give a link to a site that list some of their contributions?

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux-2.6.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=broadcom.com (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux-2.6.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=broadcom.com)

Yes, it's true.
:)

[phrostbyte]

I am absolutely well versed in the "freedom" part of free software. It is the insistance on the free "beer" part...

I have noticed a tendency on the part of many to express a disgust at those who attempt to repackage and charge for "free" software.

Also, if you are working on code as a "hobby", it means the physical energy you are exerting to do so is being provided by other means...like you your job.

When asked about th advantages of linux, being free (as in beer) is top of the list, while Windows is often castigated for being expensive.

There is a cost for everything in the universe...it just comes down to who is paying it.

As I suspected, most indicate that most "free" software largely exists because of commercial enterprise seeking to capitalize on it.

Well free as in charge is an advantage to (many/most) distros of Linux, not all are free. You can charge for your own distro but it's frowned upon if you don't contribute anything back. It's kind of like being a leech. I don't think it has anything to do with socialist ideas, just common courtesy.

When people try to call FOSS communist I can't help but laugh. FOSS is highly capitalist, highly free market in practice. It's the perfect example of a free market with basically no barriers to entry.

Windows on the other hand is centrally planned, centrally controlled. Microsoft products (in general) are purely centrally planned products. So are most (all?) proprietary software products. And really the proprietary software industry is actually quite Soviet-like in organization, with Microsoft in the role of the central government where they set the standards and the rules of business, and the direction of Windows development, and everyone else must follow. To accomplish this, they are using patents and copyright laws, and the business of lockin to create a culture of very strong economic control (and against the ideas of free market trade).

[Netsu]

Google is a good example of income generation using free (as in beer) software that falls into open and closed source models (mainly closed).
And how does Google exactly generate income from their software?


Well free as in charge is an advantage to (many/most) distros of Linux, not all are free. You can charge for your own distro but it's frowned upon if you don't contribute anything back. It's kind of like being a leech.
Is it possible to create a closed-source product using open-source code? I thought that this is how the open-source works, you get sth for free - you can't sell it.
But if it is like that then how can any linux distro not be free of charge?

And all that said, are selling support for companies and donations the only ways for linux companies to earn money?

[TheLions]

And how does Google exactly generate income from their software?


trough Adsense..

[Netsu]

I see Google ads here and there but where's the profit in let's say Chrome or Picasa?

[smartboyathome]

I see Google ads here and there but where's the profit in let's say Chrome or Picasa?

In the case of Google Chrome, it keeps more people from using stuff like Adblock, and thus allows the people to see more of Google's ads and for Google to get more money.

[ugm6hr]

In the case of Google Chrome, it keeps more people from using stuff like Adblock, and thus allows the people to see more of Google's ads and for Google to get more money.

Importantly, it apparently uses Google's search engine for everything you type into the url bar that isn't a full url.

Every search = potential ad clicks.

Picasa (the desktop app) is optimised to make use of Picasa (the online photo album). Not certain whether it has ads, but it certainly has the possibility of ads in the future (i.e. business model of growing customer base for future returns - not dissimilar to Ubuntu).

And no - you cannot modify GPL open source code and license it with a non-GPL license. This does not apply to all open source code though (the BSD license allows this). You can, however, code a new module or add-on to a GPL program, and sell that as a closed source module, as long as you ensure the base GPL code is made available under the GPL license. This is how the Sun StarOffice maintains its closed source status (with an OpenOffice base).

[Netsu]

You can, however, code a new module or add-on to a GPL program, and sell that as a closed source module, as long as you ensure the base GPL code is made available under the GPL license.

Oh, now I see, thanks.

[mocoloco]

Interesting discussion.


If you are developing as a hobby, your job finances development.

Sounded like you were implying that FOSS developers code on company time, rather than doing their "regular" work.


Also, if you are working on code as a "hobby", it means the physical energy you are exerting to do so is being provided by other means...like you your job.

Ah, so that's your interpretation. By that logic the corporations of the world are funding kayaking trips, local basketball tournaments, and murderous rampages in shopping malls. Odd point of view but I'll give it to you. If it feels any better for you to think of it that way, then yes, often a developer's day job is funding free software. Or maybe in some cases bank robbing is.

Since I think what a person does with his or her earnings does not have to be associated with the source of those earning, I guess my answer would be that people fund free software (along with many organizations and companies, as have been discussed). Right now in a way I am funding free software, because I put time and effort in to contributing to it. And contributing to it makes it that much more valuable to me, like anything people invest resources in to.

[ZarathustraDK]

Windows on the other hand is centrally planned, centrally controlled. Microsoft products (in general) are purely centrally planned products. So are most (all?) proprietary software products. And really the proprietary software industry is actually quite Soviet-like in organization, with Microsoft in the role of the central government where they set the standards and the rules of business, and the direction of Windows development, and everyone else must follow. To accomplish this, they are using patents and copyright laws, and the business of lockin to create a culture of very strong economic control (and against the ideas of free market trade).

Not trying to start an ideology-rumble here, but let's try to keep the definition of communism apart from how it went down in history. If Microsoft were to be gauged by an ideological metric (in their encyclopedic definition) then they would be a monarchy/tyranny, not a communist state.

[Netsu]

Soviet Union was a totalitarian country, and that's a much better representation than monarchy or tyrrany ;)

[pbpersson]

Okay, I have ALWAYS wanted to know how FOSS developers can afford to buy food so I want to read this.

But.....right now I am at work and cannot think about Open Source stuff so I thought I would post here so I will see this thread later at home. ;)

[k2t0f12d]

This is an incredibly easy one. The people (including businesses) who need a FOSS program to work as well as possible for their purpose will pay in time, money, resources (including dedicated staff) to ensure they get the benefits they desire. Further, those that are far thinking will return most of their changes back to community so others may add beneficial changes that they either haven't added themselves or imagined possible.

Prominent business who practice in this way are IBM, Google, SCO, Sun Microsystems, etc.

In fact, this development model is precisely the same as any other software developer's business model with only two exceptions that I can see. There is no unneeded monolithic power that controls what may or may not be done with the code, and, individual developers can choose what they do and do not share with the larger organism.

[Chemical Imbalance]

Okay, I have ALWAYS wanted to know how FOSS developers can afford to buy food so I want to read this.

But.....right now I am at work and cannot think about Open Source stuff so I thought I would post here so I will see this thread later at home. ;)

offtopic, but you can subscribe to threads (under Thread Tools) without posting FYI

[tsali]

Interesting discussion.



Sounded like you were implying that FOSS developers code on company time, rather than doing their "regular" work.



Ah, so that's your interpretation. By that logic the corporations of the world are funding kayaking trips, local basketball tournaments, and murderous rampages in shopping malls. Odd point of view but I'll give it to you. If it feels any better for you to think of it that way, then yes, often a developer's day job is funding free software. Or maybe in some cases bank robbing is.

Since I think what a person does with his or her earnings does not have to be associated with the source of those earning, I guess my answer would be that people fund free software (along with many organizations and companies, as have been discussed). Right now in a way I am funding free software, because I put time and effort in to contributing to it. And contributing to it makes it that much more valuable to me, like anything people invest resources in to.

Actually, I think it's anything but odd...and yes, your income, whatever source, funds your outgos...be it kayaking or coding. Or eating food, sleeping in a bed, etc, etc.

If you have a job that allows you to purchase a computer and code, even in your spare time, that income is financing your contribution to open source.

[tsali]

This is an incredibly easy one. The people (including businesses) who need a FOSS program to work as well as possible for their purpose will pay in time, money, resources (including dedicated staff) to ensure they get the benefits they desire. Further, those that are far thinking will return most of their changes back to community so others may add beneficial changes that they either haven't added themselves or imagined possible.

Prominent business who practice in this way are IBM, Google, SCO, Sun Microsystems, etc.

In fact, this development model is precisely the same as any other software developer's business model with only two exceptions that I can see. There is no unneeded monolithic power that controls what may or may not be done with the code, and, individual developers can choose what they do and do not share with the larger organism.

Actually, I can't make head or tails of what you've just described. It sounds like you're saying that coders are employed by these companies just as they are with closed source.

If this is what you are saying, then YES there is a larger power having greater influence over the code base. Novell has tremendous influence over Evolution and OpenSUSE.

And, no, these employees get no more choice about that than anyone else who is coding for a company.

From what I've seen, larger companies like Red Hat, IBM, or NoMachine tend to be very selective about what they release as "open" and what they retain control over.

[k2t0f12d]

And, no, these employees get no more choice about that than anyone else who is coding for a company.

I didn't say employees have any such control. What does that have to do with anything?


From what I've seen, larger companies like Red Hat, IBM, or NoMachine tend to be very selective about what they release as "open" and what they retain control over.


<snip>individual developers can choose what they do and do not share with the larger organism.
[READ: developer == an organization providing development, not necessarily individual programmers; organism == larger community of other developers and users also using and hacking on the same program]

Is that clearer for you now?

[mocoloco]

Actually, I think it's anything but odd...and yes, your income, whatever source, funds your outgos...be it kayaking or coding. Or eating food, sleeping in a bed, etc, etc.

Once the funds are mine I can do as I wish with them, thus if anyone is deemed as financing something with those funds, it's me.


to finance: 1. To provide or obtain funding for a transaction or undertaking.

The headline would read "200 Volunteers Provide Disaster Relief for Victims" NOT "This List of 200 Companies Indirectly Provided Funding so That Their Employees Could Provide Disaster Relief for Victims".

Anyway, I get that your saying "nothing is truly free (gratis)", since any resources involved can be given a monetary value. In my opinion there's enough in this thread to consider your original question answered.


And, no, these employees get no more choice about that than anyone else who is coding for a company.
I would disagree and say the do have at least a bit more choice; rather than secretive IP and NDAs, if a Novell employee doesn't like something in Evolution he can tweak it to his liking and distribute his changes as a fork, etc. Sure it's not going to be in the main product but it's a better boat to be in then if you don't like something in Outlook, where your options are don't use it at all or shut up and take it.

[earthpigg]

From what I've seen, larger companies like Red Hat, IBM, or NoMachine tend to be very selective about what they release as "open" and what they retain control over.

that is indeed true.

but in some cases, there is no choice.

if Red Hat changes the kernel so it works with such-and-such hardware... well, the kernel still needs to be GPL'd if they distribute it, right?

as a result, those changes will then make their way upstream and, if linus likes them, will make their way back downstream to all linux users in the next kernel update.

[earthpigg]

tell you what, tsali.

be more specific. pick a piece of FLOSS, and lets see if we can identify who (if anyone) pays for its developement.

i just looked up on GNOME.

GNOME is headed by the GNOME Foundation.

in 2004, 60% of the GNOME Foundation's revenue came from an annual GNOME conference things called "GUADEC". GUADEC is gratis to attend.

GUADEC gets money from sponsors at the event.

i would assume that the sponsors have something to sell -- IBM Mainframes, perhaps, or maybe tech support for a particular distro.

[tsali]

tell you what, tsali.

be more specific. pick a piece of FLOSS, and lets see if we can identify who (if anyone) pays for its developement.

i just looked up on GNOME.

GNOME is headed by the GNOME Foundation.

in 2004, 60% of the GNOME Foundation's revenue came from an annual GNOME conference things called "GUADEC". GUADEC is gratis to attend.

GUADEC gets money from sponsors at the event.

i would assume that the sponsors have something to sell -- IBM Mainframes, perhaps, or maybe tech support for a particular distro.

So, it appears that GNOME is largely a commercial endeavor driven by commercial interest of companies.

I think you just helped me boil it down.

I tend to look at this as simply as an energy equation. If I volunteer to help disaster victims, it is only because I have some other source of food, water, clothing and shelter that affords me the luxury to do so. If I code without receiving direct payment for it, is that not the same kind of thing?

[rolandrock]

Because I think it is important to know what 14-year-olds-who-live-in-their-mother's-basements think, I sometimes read the ZDNet tech forums. There is a remarkable attitude expressed by NBMers that FOSS is akin to socialism.

(Note to everyone outside USA: to Americans, socialism=sticking needles in babies' eyes)
(Note to Americans: to the rest of the world, socialism is a political ideology that espouses equal treatment of citizens)

They also assert that developers who spend their free time contributing to FOSS are subverting capitalism, they are stealing from their employees, they are "un-American" (isn't it strange how people who use that phrase are usually spiteful ignorant bigots) and are therefore evil.

I think that something of this attitude has been present in the research used by OP to ask his original question.

To summarise, I don't think you have to be a pinko-russian-loving-commie to contribute to FOSS but a modicum of compassion for your fellow man helps (or a tremendously delicate ego that needs to see their name splashed around the internet - that's why I wrote this - I can't stand my fellow man).

[tsali]

I think that something of this attitude has been present in the research used by OP to ask his original question.


I have seen both...some who consider FOSS subversive and some who are FOSS advocates because they hate "The Man". I have seen both in this forum.

I think both attitudes are terribly flawed. I think they both stem from some other deficiency in the people who hold them.

The one I see most often though, is that of university students using university resources to code, then bad-mouthing the very system that allows their university to exist and finance their software endeavor.

Like artists who think money is evil, yet never hesitate to accept obscene payment for their work.

Like California movie stars telling everyone to "live green" while the rest of us are trying to live any way we can.

I find the dichotomy...and hypocrisy...interesting.

[Andreas1]

Importantly, it apparently uses Google's search engine for everything you type into the url bar that isn't a full url.(about Google Chrome)

Firefox seems to do that too. And Google is default in the search box.

[mocoloco]

The one I see most often though, is that of university students using university resources to code, then bad-mouthing the very system that allows their university to exist and finance their software endeavor.

You see similar attitudes when these types of people use proprietary software, sharing "pirated" copies because "they charge way too much" or "the product sucks anyway" and then turning around and complaining because they haven't included feature XYZ.

Edit: I would agree though that there are probably more of these "stick it to the man" types attracted to FOSS. But they certainly don't represent the majority.

[BigSilly]

I think while ever there's GNU and Richard Stallman, there'll be a part of Linux that's politically motivated. However, I agree with whoever it was who said that there's a real free market ideology behind it nowadays, and I think that can benefit a great many people in an altruistic way. I think really, more than socialism or anything "anti-American", it's that that worries Microsoft more than anything. Choose how I feel about the company (and I'm not a hater), it's a monopoly and really ought to face up to competition.

I use Linux myself simply because I prefer it. But I also like to use relatively locally (ie. European) made distros such as Ubuntu and Mandriva. I don't know how misguided that is, but I do this because I generally feel that this is the best way to make sure I'm not a) perpetuating the monopoly, and b) serving American business interests globally. As I say, this may be wrong or misguided, but to me using a piece of computer software that isn't Microsoft is actually important to me. Not as a rabid fanboy or Leftie Linux Loon, but as a rational person.

[MaxIBoy]

http://www.dvara.net/HK/homesteading.pdf
You may find this informative.

[ugm6hr]

(about Google Chrome)

Firefox seems to do that too. And Google is default in the search box.

Yes. And Mozilla earns money from google for this.


So, it appears that GNOME is largely a commercial endeavor driven by commercial interest of companies.

In that case, all the world's wealth comes from commercial companies; every single thing that everyone who lives in the modern world does is a commercial endeavour. I work for a publicly funded hospital, and believe I help to improve people's health. My time at work is funded by our government, which is funded by taxes. Taxes are paid by all businesses and commercial enterprises, in addition to by private individuals. But all individuals are funded, either directly or indirectly, by some commercial endeavour. See where this is going?

I realise this is just facetious, but, in the cash-based society, money only exists because of commercial endeavour. So the argument about where funding comes from is mute if continued to the extremes you are suggesting.

[BigSilly]

http://www.dvara.net/HK/homesteading.pdf
You may find this informative.

I don't have the time or the attention span! Can someone break this down into a simple to follow chunk?

[koenn]

YSo the argument about where funding comes from is mute if continued to the extremes you are suggesting.

+1
The OP seems hell-bent on "proving" that there's some sinister payment scheme going on in open source / free software.

[koenn]

The one I see most often though, is that of university students using university resources to code, then bad-mouthing the very system that allows their university to exist and finance their software endeavor.
I don't see how this specific to open source.
Students that browse the web or read their gmail on uni computers are also using university resources, and I'm sure some of them will do their share of bad mouthing. How come you're so obsessed on singleing out "FOSS' people ?

Besides that, If a student happened to be in CS, he'd probably be encouraged to code ... on university computers or not.

[tsali]

See where this is going?

Yup...I see where that is going...and it makes sense.

We experience the high standards of living we do because of commercial endeavour.

[tsali]

I don't see how this specific to open source.
Students that browse the web or read their gmail on uni computers are also using university resources, and I'm sure some of them will do their share of bad mouthing. How come you're so obsessed on singleing out "FOSS' people ?

Besides that, If a student happened to be in CS, he'd probably be encouraged to code ... on university computers or not.

I am not singling out FOSS people...I am singling out those people who would bite the hand that feeds them.