Okay, I have to say I have a big issue with this anti-corporate slant. Mouser, I think you may be overly zealous in your distrust of corporations (not that it is unwarranted, this is just more of a reality check to ensure you are not being too pessimistic). I feel your conclusions from the book are rather off the mark as I will present in a moment. Also, I am particularly concerned with the way rxantos explains it (not saying you are completely wrong, just the way you explain your thoughts is making no sense to me). Assuming all statements made thus far are true (specifically that 95% of software is for internal consumption), then I don't see the issue. More specifically, open source software does not mean that these corporations went out and took free code from someone else necessarily. Much, dare I say most, of this code is developed in house for business-specific purposes. Moreover, if the 5% is all that is out there now, look at how much IS out there. That means this is a truly mammoth market that has more than enough room for anyone with an idea and skills to bring that idea to market independent of the size of their organization.
This leads to the argument that it puts programmers out of work. Who do you think they will have develop it/customize it for their use? The manager? Not in any company I have ever worked for or seen. Indeed, I feel that the comparison of a coder to a starving artist is a gross exaggeration and negligent blindness to the realities of business. Companies get nothing for free - sure they may download free software, for example, but then they have to pay a programmer to customize it to suit their needs. Moreover, if this software is relied on for even the slightest bit of production, then the company will want (and pay for) someone to support it to ensure it stays functional. Does this mean programmers will do this for free? Again, not in any normal situation I have ever seen. Indeed, rather than comparing the programmer to a starving artist, I see them being more comparable to the accountant. Some will work for corporations of all sizes, some will be independent contractors, and some will be small businesses filling the needs of everyday consumers. This is where the small, independent programmer this thread alludes to is going in my eyes.
Now, speaking directly to rxantos, With regard to your complaints about a few "fat cats" being shareholders and owning everything to their own money-making machine, I wish to ask you for specific examples? I don't believe you can account for the staggering amount of money in the stock markets around the world with your narrow view. At best, these "Ultra Wealthy" make up a small percentage. By far, the largest source of money in the stock market is shareholders who represent the common man. These are corporations investing money in other corporations on behalf of small individual contributors. In the United States, there are two BIG examples that make up in excess of 90% (exact percentage depends on who you talk to, but I have seen numbers between 95% and 98% of market funds available) of the investment funds used in the stock market today. These are in order - retirement investment vehicles (401k, IRA, etc.) and bank reinvestment of savings. Sure, these companies take a small percentage of the investment in the form of fees to cover their costs and make money (as you pointed out, that is their reason for existence after all), but without this, you would not be getting any interest on deposits or growth for retirement (if you used these financial tools). If you believe in the communist utopia as set forth by Carl Marx and therefore do not subscribe to or take advantage of these types of instruments (they exist world-wide in a variety of forms), be my guest, but this is the way the world works right now.
With that said, I do not discount or disagree with your resulting statements (part of why I think it was a poor understanding of your statements and not a poor thought process). Many programmers do come out of College with an idealistic view of open source and probably do fall for coding for free in some circumstances. I don't see this as a particularly bad thing, as they still get the experience (both of coding and of how to recognize you are being duped), and they get exposure. I also agree with your ways of making money, though I disagree those are the only ways for a programmer. There is no reason you can't work for a company in the IT department maintaining and/or customizing code. Likewise, there is no reason you can't contract with companies to provide services as needed under terms you find mutually agreeable. I get the feeling your complaint in this respect is that you can't choose your work (freelance), but as already stated there is no reason I can see to feel that way (and you even point to one potential way of accomplishing that). Indeed, the cooperative you speak of is nothing more than yet another software house producing software to make money. The organization and business plan may be a bit different than the existing companies, but that does not change the fact that it would be a business/organization. There are even existing models in other industries that could be copied to attempt to achieve the desired result. Many of these fall under the heading of non-profit agencies in the United States. The key, though, is the same as it has always been. Find a need and fulfill it at a price that is as cheap or cheaper than the alternative with a quality as good or better than the alternative.
Sorry for going on so long, but this thread was headed in a decidedly "me too" direction that I can not get behind.
Show Posts
to a HTC HD2 about a year ago and I've been using the 
