Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then how?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:38:49 GMT, Justin Gombos wrote:

> To illustrate this, consider Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  JPL acquires
> the top talent in aerospace, yet the pay is substandard.  JPL
> engineers are capable of substantially higher income elsewhere, yet
> JPL has a very low turnover.  So you have to ask, why aren't the
> engineers leaving - the answer: because the intrinsic rewards are
> high.  JPL has figured out how to attract top talent, and keep their
> interest, essentially by making the work environment more academic
> than what's typical.

This example only proves my point. The reward of having access to expensive
men's toys of JPL, the reward of being one of "distinguished those"
compensate less competitive wages. A dishwasher has nothing of that. Then,
there can be only one JPL. The system should work for all or at least for
most of laboratories. So other laboratories should provide something else,
higher wages, a system of bonuses, attractive location, 35 hours week etc,
to get qualified personnel. Otherwise, they must be closed.

> Under a capitalist system, you first have to accept the fact that you
> only have to outperform the best competitor.

Yes. This is why autocratic and totalitarian systems are better in
achieving individual goals in a short period of time. They perform
depth-first search. But they always loose in general.

> If you're rewarding
> employees with an order of magnitude more pay (which according to you
> would get the best programmers), and you are also offering high
> intrinsic rewards, then you're a poor business person, because you're
> not maximizing profit - in which case you'll be replaced by someone
> who does maximize profit.

Yes. This is bad for me, but it is good for the society. Consider it as an
intrinsic motivation. (:-))

> It's a balance that you can't escape from.

Should I? Programmers positions will be inevitably cut, for the reasons I
described in another post.

> Under this system companies that have substantial intrinsic motivators
> will pay lower wages, because they can.  And they will still retain
> top talent.

Nothing is for free. Intrinsic motivations have concrete cost. See another
post.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de