Slightly OT: is free software development indirectly subsidized?

[grumpypenguin]

On Saturday 03 February 2007 16:26, Man-Chicken wrote:
> 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*
even better
from a forum
==============================
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:15:19 +0000, George Woodbine
wrote:

>WaltA wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:51:18 GMT, graham
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Looking at the list at http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/ I'd
>>>>have to agree that having 579 separare distros is just a bit
>>>>excessive. Would be really good if a few of the developers could
>>>>combine their efforts.
>>>
>>>Only 87 to go to get a realy interesting number.
>>
>> What a Beastly Revelation !
>>
>> The one I like is:
>> "Expect the Devil"
>> if you take the Roman numerals from that phrase,
>> dclxvi, and add them you get
>> 666
>>
>> Sorry for late post, I only just found the thread.
>
>Distribution 666 will be Microsoft Linux.



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