Isn't too much open-source also a bad thing? I think we are doing ourselves a disservice by creating open source software that automates the job of the programmer. It eliminates a lot of programming jobs. Many programmers learn to be "modifiers" instead of creators and so they never really learn...
And besides, look at other professions. Is the plumber, the carpenter, the doctor, the lawyer giving you some service for free? There is a one way relationship going on here. Of course, it's easier for us to give stuff away because code, like data, can be copied easily. It's not the same kind of service but it's still something to think about.
I think we are doing ourselves a disservice by creating open source software that automates the job of the programmer.
That will never happen. Compilers automate the tedious parts of code, and we still have jobs. There's almost limitless demand, at least now, for the use of technology to improve business processes.
It eliminates a lot of programming jobs.
It does. And it creates others.
Many programmers learn to be "modifiers" instead of creators and so they never really learn...
Well, if their bosses take too much out of them and they're stripped of the energy to learn, then they should demand higher salaries or change jobs. If they choose not to learn because they don't have the curiosity, then they don't really belong in technology because curiosity is the one inflexible requirement.
Is the plumber, the carpenter, the doctor, the lawyer giving you some service for free?
Fixed vs. variable costs. The marginal cost for a doctor to see a patient (in her time) is non-zero. The marginal cost for someone's repository to be copied is (effectively) zero. Different situation.
Programmers eat the fixed costs (mostly, time) because they enjoy the problem, want to learn something, or what to build something cool. They're not going to do ongoing support (variable costs) for free, though-- at least, not at scale.
