Why is $12 too expensive? People pay $15-25 for DVD movies, $7-$8 just to see them once in a theatre, $50+ to go to a concert... why is $12 too expensive for the ability to listen at home whenever you wish?
Well if we are going to stand around and complain about the price of CD's why not complain about other prices. I've got a big bone to pick with Ferrari. Maybe I can get one off of Kazza....
That's contrary to the evidence of all of my friends, those who do download music, tend to have MP3 collections in the multi-gigabytes. I don't think they've ever deleted a song they've downloaded, and they haven't bought CD's in years.
Sadly I think your right. I can't think of anyone I know that Has bought a CD lately, and they have gigs of music on their computers they listen to all the time. They always give me that line about how the music isn't good enough to buy. Well then why are they listening to it all the time? I've pushed friends about this a bit and when it comes down to it, they don't see value in having the CD if they can get the song at a decent bit rate. I doubt that you and I are the only ones that see this. Any way all this stuff from the RIAA is just like the screams of a dying animal, their going to die in the end no matter what they do. Hollywood better think fast, cause their next on the list.
Every other product or service that we are seeing these days for sale are increasingly tipping the balance in favor of the seller. Let buyer go to hell, be the new motto.
Then don't buy the product, and you won't have a problem.
I can understand the importance of having digitally signed code and safe code, but tracking software across PC's sound a lot like 1984 than 2004.
It becomes 1984 when someone puts a gut to my head and *makes* me buy a DRM machine. Anything else is choice. You know, you don't have to go through life buying products you don't want.
Hold on now - many programmers (myself included) don't have the time or inclination to provide service on a global basis; Red Hat does, and my hat is off to them for filling that niche that many of us can't or won't fill.
That's not my point. My point is that if someone writes software and releases it open source expecting to sell their services, they will be in for a big suprise if Red Hat Bundles it and sells their own service contract for that software. The writer of the software has to compete for service contracts with others that didn't have to bear the cost of building it.
Red Hat makes it's money from support from Corporations, it may have trouble turning a profit right now, but when the marketshare expands even more, then I don't think they have much trouble.
Yes but red hat makes their money off of other peoples work. In fact they are part of the problem, the coders that worte the software contained in the Red hat Dist have to compete now with red hat for "services", and redhat didn't have to write the software. Red hat and the other distrubutions are examples of free loaders, they do no or very little work, and they suck up the service contracts that would have gone to the coders of the individual projects.
My feelings are that if you want to make money on software, don't release it open source. Many times you just add a little bit to an existing open source project any way, and don't care to make money off of that small amount of work. When lots of people add bit and pieces then you have a big project.
Surely Apple not only virtually but actually invented the PDA including coining the term.
Ever heard of the Casio Boss? These were out at least several years before newton. I agree that newton was a big step forward, but there where other products before it. Frankly I think PDA's are just starting to get to the "cool" stage. We finally are getting small computers, instead of just email, calendar, etc. I hope Zarus grows so we get more and more apps to run on it.
Really? What hardware do they make? Last I checked they have gone the commodity PC hardware route for their hardware, and IBM for their CPU's. Apple ties software they make to other companies hardware, and charge for the combination. Apple may be a hardware marketing company, but they are not a hardware company like say Sun microsystems.
I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time. Read information here When people are injured by normal technology, they are just injured or killed and the rest of the world moves on. When people will be injured by nanotech, the changes will be small perhaps undetectable even, but could involve controlled changes to things as basic to us as humans as our DNA, the food we eat, and our brain systems Government rewiring of our brains some day? Can't be too far in the future.
Well sure there are injuries from inch technology, and centimeter technology. Why should we expect more from manufacturing things even smaller?
The thing was, when we tried to convert it to Word it went to total, unreadable shit. In fact, every time I have tried to save anything but the most trivial OOo doc in word format, it has failed horribly. It made files that hung Word upon opening. So, in our experience, OOo is great as long as you never have to share your documents with someone using MS office.
I have to second that. I tried to share a document with bullets made in OO then opened in MS Word, and the bullets were screwed up. OO is a great product when sharing files with other OO users, but it's not up to snuff when interacting with MS Office. Users of OO often talk up the MS Office compatibility, and this is only going to hurt the product when people actually try it. The version I was using was what came with RH9 1.0.2 I think.
To an economist, this is a real head shaker. This whole sequence I'm talking about is called reciprocity. It's a solved problem in game theory. The only people who argue about it are people who haven't read and understand the solution, i.e., 90% of the whole world, unfortuately.
Having wasted;-) my educational time on economics, i'll tell you your wasting your time here. Not only has 90% of the world not read and understood the solution, but the slashdot crowd is is way smarter then the idiots that studied free trade. Repeat after me we are programmers we know everything, all the answers are in science fiction... we are programmers...
Oh, and by the way, your last point 'if you don't like the terms of use of the product, you don't have to buy it' is not a get out clause for corporations. The recording industry has an effective group monopoly on the production of music. That's why they are often called an oligarchy. since they produce all the recorded music, and additionally are trying to control all outlets of digital distribution as well, there simply isn't a market alternative to their works. If I could buy the same artists' music from different providers with different DRM schemes, at different prices, you might have a point. As it is, they are using DRM to not only enforce their existing rights rigidly, they are using it to give themselves extra restrictions they do not have under the law.
So what. If I don't like the product, I won't buy it. If all music has DRM, then maybe I won't buy any. The people in the music business have the right to release their work how they want with in the law. I have the right to not buy it.
Let me give you one example. Imagine when you bought a book, it came sealwrapped in plastic. When you open it, there is a licence agreement inside that stops you criticising the work in print, lending the book to a friend, or tearing any pages out. If you don't agree, then you're not allowed to read the book, and you can't return it as you've opened it.
So why didn't someone come in and build a new transit system? After all it was profitable right? You could make a pretty comfortable living building then selling out a mass transit system that is dismanteled on a continous loop.
No, it can't. It'd never be able to evaluate, say a Go game on a board 100000000x100000000. There isn't enough matter on earth for the calculation. You NEED to abstract and have a strategy with Go. Whether you believe everything can be solved by brute force is simply irrelevant. Only AI can take shortcuts and make the imposible happen. Yes, organization and abstraction, in a word, inteligence beats brute force, at least in our finite universe.
Ok this is just absurd. Humans could never play a game on a board of 100000000x100000000. First of all the board would be way to big, second the number of stones needed to finish the game would be huge, and lastly the time to finish it would be astronomical. Can you imagine the number of Ko threats you would have in the mid-game? To be fair the current game is really 19x19. Still the prospect for using brute force on Go is absurd at this point. I can remeber a comment from one of the Deep blue designers was "no way" when he was asked if he would work on Go next. I don't think we should say Go can never be solved, it just seems unlikely at this point. Any way if chess is solved I don't really think this really detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Could someone really memorize the entire solution? Nope.
I can remeber back in the early 90's when Sun was a workstation company. Anyone remeber that? Sun had the best Unix workstations around, they competed head to head with SGI, HP, IBM, Apollo, etc. They just crushed the mini-computer makers back in their hey day as you say. Then one day they switched their poduct focus to "servers". At the time I thought that was a little weird since it seemed to go against their then philosophy of "the network is the computer", and having many networked unix stations together to solve scientific problems. You can still sometimes see this philosophy in technologies like JINI, or the work they did on JXTA. Often times it was like Sun would be saying 2 things. One was that their servers were the best in the world, the other that the future of computing is millions of networked computers of different types(smart devices) communicating to each other with out servers. Of course Sun doesn't make any of these other devices, they only make big expensive servers. Sun made a boat load of money in the late 90's in servers, their future is not at pretty in that market anymore. Maybe it's time to make another switch, they went from workstations, to servers, maybe it's time to refocus on "the network is the computer". On another interesting note, Sun dumped millions into Java, and what do they have to show for it? Has java made Sun any money? I think that history will judge Sun harshly on it's java strategy.
Poor linguistic abilities aside, this fucker's right. The way to lose weight is to eat right and exercise.
Fuck being skinny. Pack on some serious muscle too.
My lifting consists of 1-2 hours typically (depending on how focused I am), and I have a 6 day split (2 days on, 1 day off, all 6 to cover my whole body). I aim for at least 30 minutes of cardio per day, sometimes I do more sometimes I do less...
And they say the whole roid rage this is just a myth...
You think I'm lying? Eat rice 3 times a day for a week and you'll gain weight even if your calories are low, then eat bacon and eggs 6 times a day for a week and you'll lose weight, why?
If you eat rice and gain weight, your caloric intake is to high, reduce the quantity of rice. Bottom line is that if your caloric intake is less then is expended you will loose weight, regardless of what you eat. This is true even if my entire diet is made up of eating cane sugar out of a bag with a spoon.
I take no responsibility for any health problems you may develop as a result of reading this post.
Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free.
Uh, so doesn't this mean that these indie labels are succeding becuase they purposely target their music to those who will pay for music? Sorry I don't see this as an argument against the RIAA, more likely it's an argument that downloading music does effect sales.
I can't tell you how many science fiction fans are complete experts in their own minds in fields of science they know nothing about. I'm starting to believe that science fiction is actually dangerous in that some people actually believe that it is a short cut to becoming science and engineering "experts" rather then pursuing the educational route. Science fiction is of course fiction. Some people just need to be reminded of that.
"No, as I said, a majority of open source is a labor of love. Many other Open Source applications were funded by companies, for their internal use, and released out to the general public. They are not selling outher peoples software, not are they allowed to. They are simply redistributing it completely in accordance with the licensing."
Yes most open source software is a labor of love, and is free. Vim and xawtv add value to redhat, value that redhat doesn't have to pay for. Add to that Gnome, now i've covered all the apps i've got open right now, oh yeah galeon too. Check this out: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ I don't think there is any doubt that gnome adds value to many of the distros out there.
"So when did it become a businesses responsibility to ensure the career of developers? What is wrong with using something free if it is of equal quality? Should I start paying royalites to Francis Scott Keye's family every time I sing the star spangled banner? Where is the logic in the "People should have to pay for everything" mindset?"
So you don't care if busniesses ship their programming jobs off to India? Businesses don't owe anyone anything do they?
"The problem as you see it, I think, is that you think open source, free software developers are being ripped off. This couldn't be further from the truth. As I said, there are rewards far greater than monetary for a developer, else you'd see Linus having a "pay for patch acceptance" program with Linux. The only other problem I could see you having with free software is that you are a closed source commercial developer and OSF and FSF are cutting into your bread and butter."
Maybe we can now bring this discussion back on topic which is the H1-Bs. The complaint in most threads here is that compaines either ships jobs off to India, or Hires cheaper H1-Bs that increase the supply of labor to take american jobs. We all want to get paid for our work, yes H1-Bs do compete for our labor, Indian's in India also compete for the work. Companies want to cut costs, that's how they do business. Another way companies do this is through free software. I'm not going to fault a group of developers for their labor of love, it's just there are side effects to the result of that labor. Companies won't pay a developer to build something that they can otherwise get for free. Just as they can further reduce costs by shipping the "glueing of components" jobs over seas.
I actually don't see free open source software as either good or bad, like most things it's more complicated then that. Unfortulatley I think that there is an over looked side effect that is bad for developers and good for corporations in this instance. US Programmers compete with H1-B's, programmers from other countries, and free software in this globalized complicated world.
" Still you misundertand what open source mean. Software can be open source without being free, and can be free without having open source. All the software you listed is not only open source, it is free sopftware. The reason you're not putting money directly into the hands of the developer isn't because it's open source, it's because it's free software."
Ok, I don't think you understand how open source works. Does redhat pay for the development of vim?, xawtv?(i'm using them now). The way you see it open source software wouldn't be created until a developer was paid to create it. But this isn't the way it's being done now. By far most open source software is created by developers for free, then companies like red hat grab it package it and sell it. True there not slaves in that they don't have to do it, but yeah red hat gets software for nothing. Which brings me to my point. Companies are using free open source products in place of products that they would have paid for, money that would have gone to a developer.
"The creators of open source aren't "slaves" as you seem to like to put it. No one is forced to contribute to open source. How is this different than companies paying for the low level apps and still having to hire a cheaper monkey to glue them together? How is this NOT great? Are you implying that companies should have to pay for OS and licenses and applications, or that there is something wrong with open source?"
This is not great because companies get for free what they would have other wise paid for, what would otherwise have been money in a developers pocket. Wouldn't it be better to make companies pay developers for their work? I think it would be great if as you say developers made a company pay them to develop that software, and to GPL it. I just don't see that, most open source software is also free software, software that I work with every day.
That was a very flawed analogy. First off, open source != Free. You're thinking of Free Software. There's quite a difference in the two. Open Source simply means you make you code open to those you distribute it to.
Right, that's why I fork out a visa # everytime I visit freshmeat. Good luck getting redhat for free too.
Second, free software != free work. While many of the applications out there are labors of love, many programmers are still paid to further develop their programs. Gentoo has corporate backing, Dan Robbins is working on it full time, and I bet his pay is pretty damn good too.
I can list off the top of my head open source apps that I used just today vim, ant, and jboss. All are free of charge, all were expensive to develop, all are used by companies with out putting money in the hands of that apps developers.
Third, companies can't use open source developers as slaves. As an open source advocate, I make my code freely available and I charged no one to do it, but if company X says "Hey, we need something to do this" I'm not going to code it for free, nor do I know ANY open source developers who would.
So a company gets operating systems, and applications for free, then pays some one to just glue them together, great. Companies love open source, they get slaves to do the hard part(building the low level apps) then they get cheaper monkeys to glue the parts together. This is great how?
corporations want protection from countries without labor laws becase they can't compete with sweatshops or massively underpaid workers, but they also want to reap the benefits of those same workers
Oh but it gets much worse. Just think if some programmers will not only work for half your rate in this country, but instead will work for free!. Companies will just use these slaves to build most of their software, and pay the rest of us budget rates to glue these pieces together. Welcome to the open source world.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is $12 too expensive? People pay $15-25 for DVD movies, $7-$8 just to see them once in a theatre, $50+ to go to a concert... why is $12 too expensive for the ability to listen at home whenever you wish?
Well if we are going to stand around and complain about the price of CD's why not complain about other prices. I've got a big bone to pick with Ferrari. Maybe I can get one off of Kazza....
That's contrary to the evidence of all of my friends, those who do download music, tend to have MP3 collections in the multi-gigabytes. I don't think they've ever deleted a song they've downloaded, and they haven't bought CD's in years.
Sadly I think your right. I can't think of anyone I know that Has bought a CD lately, and they have gigs of music on their computers they listen to all the time. They always give me that line about how the music isn't good enough to buy. Well then why are they listening to it all the time? I've pushed friends about this a bit and when it comes down to it, they don't see value in having the CD if they can get the song at a decent bit rate. I doubt that you and I are the only ones that see this. Any way all this stuff from the RIAA is just like the screams of a dying animal, their going to die in the end no matter what they do. Hollywood better think fast, cause their next on the list.
How about those of us who haven't bought new CD's because we haven't been able to use file-sharing to go find new music that we like?
Or how about those of us that haven't bought a new CD because I can get all the music I want for Free on the Internet?
The RIAA is scared as hell for a reason, I never have to *buy* music again.
Then don't buy the product, and you won't have a problem.
I can understand the importance of having digitally signed code and safe code, but tracking software across PC's sound a lot like 1984 than 2004.
It becomes 1984 when someone puts a gut to my head and *makes* me buy a DRM machine. Anything else is choice. You know, you don't have to go through life buying products you don't want.
That's not my point. My point is that if someone writes software and releases it open source expecting to sell their services, they will be in for a big suprise if Red Hat Bundles it and sells their own service contract for that software. The writer of the software has to compete for service contracts with others that didn't have to bear the cost of building it.
Yes but red hat makes their money off of other peoples work. In fact they are part of the problem, the coders that worte the software contained in the Red hat Dist have to compete now with red hat for "services", and redhat didn't have to write the software. Red hat and the other distrubutions are examples of free loaders, they do no or very little work, and they suck up the service contracts that would have gone to the coders of the individual projects.
My feelings are that if you want to make money on software, don't release it open source. Many times you just add a little bit to an existing open source project any way, and don't care to make money off of that small amount of work. When lots of people add bit and pieces then you have a big project.
Ever heard of the Casio Boss? These were out at least several years before newton. I agree that newton was a big step forward, but there where other products before it. Frankly I think PDA's are just starting to get to the "cool" stage. We finally are getting small computers, instead of just email, calendar, etc. I hope Zarus grows so we get more and more apps to run on it.
I repeat, Apple is a hardware company.
Really? What hardware do they make? Last I checked they have gone the commodity PC hardware route for their hardware, and IBM for their CPU's. Apple ties software they make to other companies hardware, and charge for the combination. Apple may be a hardware marketing company, but they are not a hardware company like say Sun microsystems.
Well sure there are injuries from inch technology, and centimeter technology. Why should we expect more from manufacturing things even smaller?
and for us to live with the consequences.
I have to second that. I tried to share a document with bullets made in OO then opened in MS Word, and the bullets were screwed up. OO is a great product when sharing files with other OO users, but it's not up to snuff when interacting with MS Office. Users of OO often talk up the MS Office compatibility, and this is only going to hurt the product when people actually try it. The version I was using was what came with RH9 1.0.2 I think.
Having wasted
So what. If I don't like the product, I won't buy it. If all music has DRM, then maybe I won't buy any. The people in the music business have the right to release their work how they want with in the law. I have the right to not buy it.
Let me give you one example. Imagine when you bought a book, it came sealwrapped in plastic. When you open it, there is a licence agreement inside that stops you criticising the work in print, lending the book to a friend, or tearing any pages out. If you don't agree, then you're not allowed to read the book, and you can't return it as you've opened it.
This is an easy one, I would't buy the book.
So why didn't someone come in and build a new transit system? After all it was profitable right? You could make a pretty comfortable living building then selling out a mass transit system that is dismanteled on a continous loop.
Ok this is just absurd. Humans could never play a game on a board of 100000000x100000000. First of all the board would be way to big, second the number of stones needed to finish the game would be huge, and lastly the time to finish it would be astronomical. Can you imagine the number of Ko threats you would have in the mid-game? To be fair the current game is really 19x19. Still the prospect for using brute force on Go is absurd at this point. I can remeber a comment from one of the Deep blue designers was "no way" when he was asked if he would work on Go next. I don't think we should say Go can never be solved, it just seems unlikely at this point. Any way if chess is solved I don't really think this really detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Could someone really memorize the entire solution? Nope.
I can remeber back in the early 90's when Sun was a workstation company. Anyone remeber that? Sun had the best Unix workstations around, they competed head to head with SGI, HP, IBM, Apollo, etc. They just crushed the mini-computer makers back in their hey day as you say. Then one day they switched their poduct focus to "servers". At the time I thought that was a little weird since it seemed to go against their then philosophy of "the network is the computer", and having many networked unix stations together to solve scientific problems. You can still sometimes see this philosophy in technologies like JINI, or the work they did on JXTA. Often times it was like Sun would be saying 2 things. One was that their servers were the best in the world, the other that the future of computing is millions of networked computers of different types(smart devices) communicating to each other with out servers. Of course Sun doesn't make any of these other devices, they only make big expensive servers. Sun made a boat load of money in the late 90's in servers, their future is not at pretty in that market anymore. Maybe it's time to make another switch, they went from workstations, to servers, maybe it's time to refocus on "the network is the computer". On another interesting note, Sun dumped millions into Java, and what do they have to show for it? Has java made Sun any money? I think that history will judge Sun harshly on it's java strategy.
Fuck being skinny. Pack on some serious muscle too.
My lifting consists of 1-2 hours typically (depending on how focused I am), and I have a 6 day split (2 days on, 1 day off, all 6 to cover my whole body). I aim for at least 30 minutes of cardio per day, sometimes I do more sometimes I do less...
And they say the whole roid rage this is just a myth...
If you eat rice and gain weight, your caloric intake is to high, reduce the quantity of rice. Bottom line is that if your caloric intake is less then is expended you will loose weight, regardless of what you eat. This is true even if my entire diet is made up of eating cane sugar out of a bag with a spoon.
I take no responsibility for any health problems you may develop as a result of reading this post.
I kept scrolling down seeing them remove more from the car to make it lighter, and was dissapointed that they never turned on the driver ;-D
Uh, so doesn't this mean that these indie labels are succeding becuase they purposely target their music to those who will pay for music? Sorry I don't see this as an argument against the RIAA, more likely it's an argument that downloading music does effect sales.
I can't tell you how many science fiction fans are complete experts in their own minds in fields of science they know nothing about. I'm starting to believe that science fiction is actually dangerous in that some people actually believe that it is a short cut to becoming science and engineering "experts" rather then pursuing the educational route. Science fiction is of course fiction. Some people just need to be reminded of that.
"No, as I said, a majority of open source is a labor of love. Many other Open Source applications were funded by companies, for their internal use, and released out to the general public. They are not selling outher peoples software, not are they allowed to. They are simply redistributing it completely in accordance with the licensing."
Yes most open source software is a labor of love, and is free. Vim and xawtv add value to redhat, value that redhat doesn't have to pay for. Add to that Gnome, now i've covered all the apps i've got open right now, oh yeah galeon too. Check this out: http://www.gnome.org/friends/
I don't think there is any doubt that gnome adds value to many of the distros out there.
"So when did it become a businesses responsibility to ensure the career of developers? What is wrong with using something free if it is of equal quality? Should I start paying royalites to Francis Scott Keye's family every time I sing the star spangled banner? Where is the logic in the "People should have to pay for everything" mindset?"
So you don't care if busniesses ship their programming jobs off to India? Businesses don't owe anyone anything do they?
"The problem as you see it, I think, is that you think open source, free software developers are being ripped off. This couldn't be further from the truth. As I said, there are rewards far greater than monetary for a developer, else you'd see Linus having a "pay for patch acceptance" program with Linux. The only other problem I could see you having with free software is that you are a closed source commercial developer and OSF and FSF are cutting into your bread and butter."
Maybe we can now bring this discussion back on topic which is the H1-Bs. The complaint in most threads here is that compaines either ships jobs off to India, or Hires cheaper H1-Bs that increase the supply of labor to take american jobs. We all want to get paid for our work, yes H1-Bs do compete for our labor, Indian's in India also compete for the work. Companies want to cut costs, that's how they do business. Another way companies do this is through free software. I'm not going to fault a group of developers for their labor of love, it's just there are side effects to the result of that labor. Companies won't pay a developer to build something that they can otherwise get for free. Just as they can further reduce costs by shipping the "glueing of components" jobs over seas.
I actually don't see free open source software as either good or bad, like most things it's more complicated then that. Unfortulatley I think that there is an over looked side effect that is bad for developers and good for corporations in this instance. US Programmers compete with H1-B's, programmers from other countries, and free software in this globalized complicated world.
" Still you misundertand what open source mean. Software can be open source without being free, and can be free without having open source. All the software you listed is not only open source, it is free sopftware. The reason you're not putting money directly into the hands of the developer isn't because it's open source, it's because it's free software."
Ok, I don't think you understand how open source works. Does redhat pay for the development of vim?, xawtv?(i'm using them now). The way you see it open source software wouldn't be created until a developer was paid to create it. But this isn't the way it's being done now. By far most open source software is created by developers for free, then companies like red hat grab it package it and sell it. True there not slaves in that they don't have to do it, but yeah red hat gets software for nothing. Which brings me to my point. Companies are using free open source products in place of products that they would have paid for, money that would have gone to a developer.
"The creators of open source aren't "slaves" as you seem to like to put it. No one is forced to contribute to open source. How is this different than companies paying for the low level apps and still having to hire a cheaper monkey to glue them together? How is this NOT great? Are you implying that companies should have to pay for OS and licenses and applications, or that there is something wrong with open source?"
This is not great because companies get for free what they would have other wise paid for, what would otherwise have been money in a developers pocket. Wouldn't it be better to make companies pay developers for their work? I think it would be great if as you say developers made a company pay them to develop that software, and to GPL it. I just don't see that, most open source software is also free software, software that I work with every day.
Right, that's why I fork out a visa # everytime I visit freshmeat. Good luck getting redhat for free too.
Second, free software != free work. While many of the applications out there are labors of love, many programmers are still paid to further develop their programs. Gentoo has corporate backing, Dan Robbins is working on it full time, and I bet his pay is pretty damn good too.
I can list off the top of my head open source apps that I used just today vim, ant, and jboss. All are free of charge, all were expensive to develop, all are used by companies with out putting money in the hands of that apps developers.
Third, companies can't use open source developers as slaves. As an open source advocate, I make my code freely available and I charged no one to do it, but if company X says "Hey, we need something to do this" I'm not going to code it for free, nor do I know ANY open source developers who would.
So a company gets operating systems, and applications for free, then pays some one to just glue them together, great. Companies love open source, they get slaves to do the hard part(building the low level apps) then they get cheaper monkeys to glue the parts together. This is great how?
Oh but it gets much worse. Just think if some programmers will not only work for half your rate in this country, but instead will work for free!. Companies will just use these slaves to build most of their software, and pay the rest of us budget rates to glue these pieces together. Welcome to the open source world.