>>25+ years ago, when IBM ruled the world of 'data processing' and ALL software was proprietary there were programmers even then who were modifying the source and freely distributing it. The source was provided because, often, the only way you could get by a bug promptly was to do it yourself and then wait for the 'official' fix later (often your own, sanctified).
>
>That is a good point and one I hadn't considered.
>
>Though... if you have a company that uses a closed source OS and one that open source OS, but the open source company devotes part of its time to improving the OS, then the closed source using company will be more productive in terms of doing their core busines since the other is fixing infrastructure.

That's true I suppose. But I think there is another side to that too.

First, the open source folks aren't necessarliy "fixing" thing in the sense that they are broken, but rather improving things. Implementing a better way (cheaper, more reliable, better service etc).

The closed source folks will be more productive at the 'core business' that THEY believe they can sell and that they believe will make them money. Now if they are wrong then they have wasted a whole lot of money. If they are only partially right then there is a good chance tht they have pissed off a lot of their customers. They basically have to be right, or at least look correct, to keep the money machine riolling along.

In an open source world different shops are PAYING different programmers to solve different problems. Each of the originators get EXACTLY what s/he need to make THEIR business better. The cost/benefit is limited to that shop and that shop alone.
However, as is typically the case, that same problem exists elsewhere too, so someone else can pick the solution up at 'no cost'.
Now multiply this by thousands of problems, all being tackled one way or another, all within the cost constraints of their own shops.
All it really takes is a well plugged-in manager/programmer/techie in a shop AND a person with a good eye for good vs poor code and you get improvement that YOU NEED at a price you can AFFORD. And you don't have to take a lot of crap that you'll never use to get the stuff you want.

There is no doubt a bright future for open source in my eyes, and one with LOTS of money in it for lots and lots of bright programmers.
But it WILL be different. Not one huge corporation raking in all the dough. Not even the odd bunch of programmers getting rich, though there will clearly be market for astute programmers/managers to "package" specific groups of improvements to ease the installation/maintenance burden for the masses.

Writing off open source on the basis that there is no money in it in the long run would be a big mistake in my opinion. There's no moneypot, but there's certainly a fulfilling and rewarding living to be made, and for MORE programmers than ever before.