Slightly OT: is free software development indirectly subsidized?

[Man-Chicken]

On Saturday 03 February 2007 16:31, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On Saturday 03 February 2007 5:10 pm, Man-Chicken wrote:
> > few and far between.  I have no subsidy, yet that still doesn't stop me
> > from contributing.

> I want to add that I didn't really touch on the "wither away" aspect of
> that. No, that's a bunch of crap.  There are a few really serious subsidies
> out here, but they are few and far between, and limited to a few dozen out
> of the thousands of FOSS applications out there.

> I lost my own indirect subsidy, but I'm still planning on hanging around. 
> I'm just bummed about how much less time I will be able to scrape up to do
> things, and how little I'll be able to spare for Rosegarden.

I really do think the lesson here is that freedom (to borrow a certain 
political party's rhetoric) isn't free.  This goes especially for movements 
that haven't become a high priority for society at large.  If we want 
Freedom, there is a cost.  Be it time, money, time, beer, time, technically 
inferior hardware, or nights where it takes 14 hours to get the bloody 
wireless card to work, it's worth it if you value the freedom that it yields.  
We have to work for our freedom, because those who would remove our freedom 
are more than willing and capable to do just that.

> > The number of the beast - vi vi vi
> Ho ho, spawn of emacs, that would have been clever, except the number of
> the beast is Roman numerals is DCLXVI.

Oh come on, did you really have to kill the poor innocent little joke?  What 
did he ever do to you?  *sob*

>
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre

-- 
~ Man-Chicken <><
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer.
The number of the beast - vi vi vi