Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Coding applications for free

<< < (2/2)

Chooco:
the dude's right, Linux programmers DO get payed. i was looking at Monster.ca to check out some job things to see what the market had (like oracle, VB, C++, just which one is the biggest wanted) and i saw they had opening at the RedHat Linux office in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with starting sallaries of $40,000

voidmain:

quote:Originally posted by flap:
For example, Red Hat and Mandrake pay people to work on KDE. So the KDE project gets paid to develop KDE;
--- End quote ---


Don't let the KDE people hear you say that or they will kick your ass.  

The truth of the matter is there are *many* different ways and reasons Free Software is written. None of it was "funded" directly in the beginning, and still not a lot of it is today. In fact I don't have to give all of my code back to the community but I do. In fact I write my code to be rather generic with the ability for future customizing in mind. That way when a company does have a need for something I can easily tailor it. So you might say I do it for free too, however I get paid when I apply it to a companies needs.

Here is a small list of companies that do directly contribute code: http://debianlinux.net/companies.html

And here is one of my favorite remarks from a NASA engineer that sums it up for me:

 
quote:Most people who were contributing software did so in a form of barter system. They needed a better Linux themselves, and that's why they contributed. Don Becker at NASA describes this as clearly as anyone else when he was asked why he contributes extremely fast Ethernet drivers, which is an extremely sophisticated technology, to the Linux kernel, and then allows Red Hat to make money selling his Ethernet drivers, and he doesn't make any money at it. He said, "Let me get this straight: I write a small Ethernet driver, that I admittedly give away, and Red Hat get to put in a box. And in return I get the complete source code and a license to do whatever I want with a complete 800MB operating system, and you're telling me Red Hat's taking advantage of me?"
--- End quote ---


from http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-828802.html

pkd_lives:
That sums things up good. The point most poeple cannot understand is that the returns are not what they expect.

Contrary to popular opinion money is a minor requirement of life. These people often fail to understand the open source philosophy because they expect high wages and huge contracts for millions of dollars.

I know people who barter in this day and age. I think it is a very positive idea. Those who can do and everyone exchanges the excess of what they do with the excess of what everybody else does. It's how money first existed. The only losers are the stupid people too lazy to learn to do anything.

Financial gain is not always the driving force (pure capitalism is a big a mistake as pure socialism - neither can or will suceed), some programmers want the kudos and fame of writing the Killer application, or working something out and saying Hey I did it, and I did it first.

I have worked on software at every job I have had as a professional, and I have never been paid for it, it has never even been on my contract of work, yet I do it because it helps the company and I look good (with luck I get pay increases or promotion). Usually it's just altering programs already written, fine tuning, eliminating bugs and general code maintenance.

voidmain:
I agree.  And to me the biggest point that most people miss is that saving money (lower expenses) is just as good as higher revenue. If you can do both then you maximize your profits.  Free software allows lower expenses, thus increases profits. Some of this savings can be passed along to fund more free software development. It's actually been working for much longer than anyone realizes. It's just getting more press lately and the biggest opponents are the "Microsofts" of the world.

It is good for people who work for Microsoft and for software companies like them to have proprietary code, vendor lockin, a monopoly. It is bad for everyone else on the planet. Now, M$ has gained a lot of money on their proprietary software (at the expense of everyone else on the planet) so they can generously fund the spread of a lot of FUD.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page