[aw3c2]

That's why people spouting "open-source is always less quality" and "without paying artists there would be no culture" are so dead wrong. People who feel the urge to create and do, will do so. And to me, things that were created for one's own enjoyment are pretty much always better than things created to be monetised.

[briandear]

Right. Can you imagine a film with the quality of Toy Story being produced just for fun? Not a chance. ThAt film took thousands of man-years to make. The whole open source everything movement is just communist nonsense that typically comes from people who have never had to make a payroll. Rails for example was the open source result of a profit-creating piece of software: Basecamp. The profits enabled the open source not the other way around. When I can feed my family, I'll contribute to open source, but who pays open source developers? Usually they're being subsidized by closed source work. For example, in my current day job, I'm building software for a startup. That pays the bills so I can afford to dabble in open source for fun. The idea if give everything away is just silly. Who is going to pay for the computer you're usin to develop on? Who pays the electric bills? Certainly not te little open source fairy godmother.

[fusiongyro]

It's hard to imagine a film the quality of Toy Story being made for fun, but I frankly find it just as hard to imagine a world powered completely by open source software, from the OS on our computer through the network stack, to the databases, web servers, and programming languages that run them all. Yet we live in that world, and the closed-source software that you assert is the only way to make a profit is somehow being written as a thin layer of film atop an ocean of free, open source software.

I'm not sure how it has escaped the world's attention that you didn't approve these thousands of man-years of work, but it's clearly an oversight that must be corrected immediately. Let's have you tell everyone it doesn't make sense and get this communist nonsense shut down immediately—it's not philosophically viable!

[dill_day]

Many great films are made on a fraction of the budget required to produce something like Toy Story. And anyway I don't think it's hard to imagine Pixar artists saying they were more motivated by the pure joy of creating something than by their paychecks. There are bad movies that are created specifically to be monetized -- that people need money is beside the point that often those who create the really good stuff are probably doing it more for fun than for money. I think I see what you're saying, but it seems like an overreaction to what didn't strike me as a controversial comment by the parent.

[SoftwareMaven]

If that were true, there would be other movies like Toy Story, but "open".

[nja]

Well, it isn't quite as long, but http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ was pretty good in terms of quality.

[matt_e]

That project had a budget of about EUR150k and artists were paid.

[SoftwareMaven]

But is Toy Story really the best of our culture? Just because it was expensive and hard doesn't necessarily mean it was te est (for the record, I have loved almost everything Pixar has done).

Asked another way: if the Pixars of the world were to disappear, would it be a net loss for our society? I'm not sure the answer to that is "yes".