First Dave:
Very little really usable software has come from people who are willing to work for $0.
Then David:
"Very little really usable software has come from people who are willing to work for six figures either, Dave."
Now Me:
The amount of money a programmer is paid has nothing to do with the usability or quality of the software. Winer's point (at least, the point I think he is making that if so I agree with) is that programmers need to be rewarded. They also need to survive: a house, food, and a little something to go to the movies. Money is a typical reward system and way to help people purchase those items that allow to keep from starving or freezing to death. Personally, I believe in charging for the software I create, as this creates a system of rewards that feeds back into even better software from me.
This doesn't mean others don't have a choice to spend their time writing free software, but I choose not to (for most things). Of course, open source does not equal free software. There's a few examples of this already. In particular, I'm personally afraid of proposed government programs that would require that govt software is only free, open source software. This should be decided on a case by case basis If an open source free application is a better value (inlcuding support costs, etc) than a closed source application, go for it. But choosing software based on open vs closed is the wrong way to do it.
No one expects a farmer to give away his crops. No one expects a miner to give away his ore. A software developer mines his imagination, invests his time, and produces software for the world. He should be rewarded. This can be money (my preference), but it can be many other things, including recognition and self-esteem.
Great software produced for 0K programmers:
- Linux
- Apache Web Server
- EMACS
Great software produced by 100K programmers (I believe many Microsoft products qualify, but to make my point I'll not include any):
- Anything from Macromedia, Adobe, and Steinberg
- Mac OS X
- Half-life
