There is no free software, only software that is paid for by somebody else.

I was inducted into Mu Alpha Theta (a college level math honor society) in 11th grade, the earliest you can be inducted. We did volunteer work tutoring math once or twice a week. I've spent a lot of time in online communities for folks with really smart kids -- the parents are typically also smart and it is an environment where many people come to terms with their own social and emotional problems through trying to do right by their kids. So I've thought a lot about this as well: Smart people are given a lot of messages to the effect that they have a moral obligation to give away what they know for the benefit of all humankind and if, instead, they use it to make big bucks, then they are evil incarnate. This mindset can be extremely hard to escape (at least for some people).

Universities are rife with such "idealism", a form of idealism that I increasingly think is misplaced. To try to put it in a nutshell: One requirement for sainthood is that you be persecuted. We seem to think that good people must suffer horribly as a means to prove their goodness. I'm increasingly disenchanted with the idea that one has to martyr oneself to be a good person, whether that means dying for the cause or just not getting paid adequately for your work. I think all that teaches people is that there are only two kinds of people: victims and victimizers and in order to be good you must be a victim because the other choice is intolerable. I have concluded that trying to be "good" by being a willing victim forces others into the role of victimizer even if they don't want to be there. So I believe that if one wants to genuinely do good in the world, one must pursue a paradigm of symbiotic exchange rather than letting people parasitically use you up and playing the role of martyr/victim.

Symbiotic exchange sounds rather like Capitalism. I don't think that means every thing one does has to be in pursuit of the almighty dollar. I haven't been here long, but I'm impressed with the quality of HN so far. I am struck by the fact that it was initially created as a means for people at Y-Combinator to get to know potential applicants -- ie although it's offered as a "free" service, it ultimately is part of their business strategy. It looks to me like this is why HN is a better run forum than many I have participated in which were all-volunteer. HN can't afford to cater to personal peccadilloes and personality quirks of a volunteer staff. It has to meet a certain professional standard. And to the degree that at least some of the members want to apply to Y-Combinator, the participants have motivation as well to remain professional and polite. It is not a good place to indulge in habits that promote flame-wars and the like because the purpose is not merely social. Not everyone here will have such a goal, but it still impacts group culture. An influential minority can go a long way towards shaping community behavior. For some members, there is potentially millions of dollars at stake (if they can get VC from Y-Combinator and launch a highly successful business). It's strong motivation to behave better than what you see in many online forums where everything is idealistically given away "free" and flame-wars and other problems are the rule, not the exception.

Here is my take on FOSS, I hope you find it interesting:

* FOSS is great at very small number of things: C compiler (gcc), Operating system (Linux), programming languages (zillions), Apache, MySQL, and a few others.

* FOSS is OK at a certain number of larger areas - relatively simple games (BzTank), office applications (Open Office)

* FOSS is absolutely horrible at new product development. Anyone with a brain and a decent idea that SOME people MIGHT pay for can see that FOSS is inferior to all of these:

   * web-based subscription model
   * web-based advertising model
   * closed source shrinkwrap model
   * closed-source consulting model

The only reason you would choose FOSS over these is you don't believe anyone would pay anything for what you want to make (but they might donate after using it). At this point, if you still choose to develop, then

   A) It is a hobby, and the only thing tying you to the project is your interest

   B) You can choose between freeware/shareware and FOSS

The game Dwarf Fortress is a good example of freeware. The creators want to retain artistic control over their creation, so they release as closed source software.

In conclusion, if you release source code, then:

   * others may improve the product, which benefits you because you are using it

   * you may lose artistic control due to fork pressure

If you don't release source code, then:

   * you have to do all of the development yourself or through people you hire

   * you retain total control over the product

Now you know!

> could no longer afford to follow in the footsteps of people like that

The late Erik Naggum had something to say about this:

"I no longer share code with other people by default. My experience and problem-solving abilities have become the bread and butter of my life, not just "fun" until something rewarding comes along. Like many older fans of Free Software and Open Source, I have discovered that it is really only free in the sense that the time you spend on it is worthless. When people refuse to help pay for the roof over your head and your meals when you help them do their well-paying jobs, sooner or later you get seriously pissed."

(http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/e239591cbc...)

You're right, and thanks for checking my ire. I probably exaggerated the merits of the tirade because I was so annoyed by all the smug comments that so clearly missed the not-so-sophisticated point about the cost of work. I still think it's an interesting rant, even if it could have been better structured and less ranty.