Agree with Ian - even more broadly there are combinations
on all three of the major dimensions of software models
- Intellectual Property (GPL versus alternatives that
don't require turning over your IP), development (social
network versus command heirarchy), and commercial model
(free, license, paid support, etc.). None is good or
bad per se but I believe different combinations are
more or less effective in different 'market' situations.
Even the boys in Redmond are looking at some dimensions
of this for their own internal use - just don't expect
them to embrace the GPL.

With respect to facts about the motivations of Open
Source and Linux developers specifically the research
focuses on who they are, how the spend their time,
what their day jobs are and why they do what they do.
The earlier comment here (and supported broadly) is
correct that many of these developers are early in
their careers and trying earn recognition for their
talents as programmers -- either for the intrinsic
value of it, or because they think it will help them
advance professionally. For others much of the code
they write supports their day jobs in large IT organizations.
There is no evidence that they are particularly interested
in earning recognition for their skills in operating
a customer support call centers - in fact most of them
have day jobs that preclude this. Consequently, you
normally see great response to fixing bugs and plugging
security holes (something that the community model
is distinctively good at), but if you want someone
to hold your hand for half a day (starting right now)
as you struggle through some configuration or deployment
issue, I'd argue you're better off paying the likes
of Red Hat.

With respect to soaring software - the 'teams' that
do this are generally small enough that the customer
experience with respect to product functionality, quality
and support comes down to individual personalities.
I would observe that to-date the commercial products
seem to be making more rapid progress on functionality.
I suspect this is because they dedicate their daytime
hours to development and, conversely, that the non-commercial
alternatives find it challenging to build a development
community out of the arguably narrow intersection of
software developers, glider pilots and individuals
with adequate discretionary time. Not that it couldn't
happen or that a single, motivated individual or two
can't get a lot done.

Hope that sounds less pompous. Now back to flying...

At 17:36 23 February 2004, Henryk Birecki wrote:
Sure, both of these are normal and reasonable scenarios
for software
project development and commercial product development.
It does not
however have impact on either the quality of freeware,
nor support,
nor the length of time a 'product' remains on the market.
There is
plenty of poor quality freeware out there, and there
is plenty of poor
quality shareware, and 'commercial' products. The same
can be said by
substituting good for poor.

Interestingly the only 'support problem reports' I
ever hear about on
r.a.s. have to do with commercial products that people
pay for.

Henryk Birecki

'tango4' wrote:

Even Linux is moving to a licenced platform for its
latest
incarnations. I have seen a lot of software move this
way lately. An
originally open source or free project matures to such
an extent that
it demands more of the core programmers than can be
done on a free
basis. The real contributors still have access to the
source but the
'hangers on' get a real product at a reasonable cost
and businesses
grow out of the supply and support of the products.

It's just an alternative business model. A programmer
believes he can
do it better and to drive the development he offers
his product for
free. The early adopters allow him to develop to a
solid application
and then he can start charging.

Ian


'Henryk Birecki' wrote in message
. ..
Andy Blackburn wrote:

Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
comes from extensive research in Open Source community
motivations and behaviors, including survey research
of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.


Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?

Henryk Birecki