Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
comes from extensive research in Open Source community
motivations and behaviors, including survey research
of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.

I don't think of making money as a bad motivation for
developing software. Writing soaring software is a
particularly tough way to make a living, so I'm willing
to support the guys who have the nerve to do it.

For those of you who develop soaring apps for the personal
satisfaction, good for you. If you don't want my money
at least you have my gratitude.



At 00:54 22 February 2004, Mark Hawkins wrote:
All I can say is, 'Hear, Hear!!' I took a bit of offense
at this as well but just marked it up to misinformation.
The whole notion that if a product doesn't cost that
is MUST not be worth anything is non-sense. However,
it is still VERY prevalent. Oh well, it's not my money
that's being spent. Later!-Markwww.soaringpilot.org
At 17:54 21 February 2004, Henryk Birecki wrote:Andy
Blackburn wrote:Free software works, but only to the
extent that youcan keep a community of talented volunteers
interestedin continuing to innovate and support the
product (thelatter being the tougher part since programmers
tendnot to like all the administrative BS associate
withproduct support).You have a highly flawed assumption
above. Those that
provide freesoftware do it for a reason, and their
support is as
good as of anycommercial organization. Have you ever
tried getting
real support fromMicrosoft? A community of volunteer
programmers helps,
but success ofa commercial product depends on an analogous
existance
of motivated(maybe by money) programmers, so a commercial
product
can stop itsdevelopment as well.Personally, I don't find a few hundred bucks
to beall that much to pay for what these products do
inYou are lucky.terms of increasing the enjoyment and
safety of cross-countryand racing flights - not to
mention the potential forimprovement in overall pilot
performance. I boughta copy of WinPilot Pro last year
and paid for copyof SeeYou mobile. Consider it a subsidy
for continueddevelopment. They're both quite good pieces
of softwareand I hope they both prove successful in
the market.I think there is a contradiction here with
your previous
thoughts.Since they are commercial products they do
not need
subsidy. If youwant to subsidise 'increasing the enjoyment
and safety
ofcross-country and racing flights - not to mention
the
potential forimprovement in overall pilot performance'
consider
finding some way tocontribute to efforts of those that
do that for soaring
population atlarge. This does not necessarily mean
monetary renumeration.Henryk Birecki