I was on their site, reading about the Free Software Foundation, and GNU products. Several "mini-thoughts" - I didn't know that the majority of code in a Linux distribution is GNU, not Linux, and hence shouldn't all the Linuxes really be called GNU not Linux. (GNU stands for GNU is Not Unix).
Secondly, I was reading about why Richard Stallman got involved, and his ideas on the detrimental effect of the commertialisation of the software world - the main reason for the FSF and GNU. I think his cause is very noble. I do think two things, however:
I feel, just a little bit, that if people are willing to pay for commertial software, then I feel it is wrong to say "no, all software should be free, cause its better".
The professionalism and size of the commertial applications would NOT exist if it were not for the fact people do this for a living. For instance, I can tell you that Fantasm would NOT be what it is if it were not for the fact we were asking people to pay for, and we would have been working on AI and 3D graphic engines.
Just as a note regards two of the bad points of commertialisation: size and speed of applications, and the tendancy for commertial applications to get bloated with features no-one ever uses (take word processors and web browsers for example...)
Secondly, it does tend to reduce the creativity of software houses by focusing them directly on what makes profit. This seems to be even more so with those with developed marketing departments, who quite often go for the safe option (probably since they have been bitten with a poorly selling product). I do feel that yet-another applications are a lot easier to market. And no, low profits do not always mean that it holds no value... (does it?).
HIT YOUR BACK BUTTON or click Random Rob