Evan,

>snip<


>I think the flaw here is that if open source is free, then there is no way to compensate programmers for their time. Only a small minority of programmers have the will and the time to do unpaid programming. Therefore the system will break down. I think _if_ people start to pay for open source software, then it can continue to evolve, otherwise it will eventually whither.
>
>>>That vast majority of the desktop, pc-based servers, minis and mainframes run proprietary OSs. I don't see this changing much. Especially when nobody actually pays money for open source OS's. I have never know anyone to pay a dime for Linux. That just isn't sustainable.
>>

Thought I'd respond to just this part...

I think that perhaps the issue here is whether or not open source folks can organize and direct their own development efforts vs those who are paid to develop and are perhaps organized by those who pay them. I'm sort of with Mike here (see below).

Additionally I think there is the huge matter of motivation. Is someone more motivated who is paid to perform a certain programming task or are they more motivated for the sheer delight of it? I'd suppose that both are correct answers - toa point. Where that point is thoughis IMO the issue. I don't know about you two but my vocation is also my avocation. IOW, I read VFP-related books on my own time simply because I enjoy it. Perhaps when I get some real free time I'll be able to do those pro-bono projects I have in mind. Until then I work for the $$ to pay the rent but also on the side because I learn by tinkering.

So.. Organization and motivation and talent. I don't see either camp as having a monopoly here...