FYI answers to your questions ...

[Josef Lowder]

Shawn, in your article by the title below, you asked 
several questions.  Here are answers to those questions. 

Open Source Versus Commercial Software: 
Why Proprietary Software is Here to Stay - By Shawn Shell 

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=420290&seqNum=1&rl=1

#1. In your article, you correctly observed the following fact, 
     but then you challenged the merit of the assertion: 

[some assert that] "the open source model for software development 
is superior to the commercial model ..." 

This fact is repeatedly proved true by the never-ending pattern of 
Microsoft crashes, blue screens, viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, 
and endless myriad of Microsoft vulnerabilities ... as contrasted to 
the vastly superior reliability of open source software ... 
(not to mention Microsoft's never-ending price-gouging licensing). 

#2. Next, you correctly observe this key point: 
"... 'commercial' software doesn't grant the user any other rights 
beyond the use of the software package, whereas the typical open 
source software license provides broad rights to modify the code 
and distribute it, in whole or in part, in any way the user sees fit." 

Right.  At least you seem to understand this part. 
It is really so utterly simple:  Everybody loves freedom. 
Nobody likes to be told what they can and cannot do 
with their own property ... -or- with the software they buy/use. 

#3. Next, you correctly observe this key point: 
"Proponents of the open source model suggest that these differences 
yield "better" software and encourage innovation." 

To your credit, you have correctly, albeit only partially concluded: 
"In some cases, that may be true." 

#4. But then you write ... and ask: 
"However, I still can't get past a few basic concepts about the 
open source model: How is a free model of software development 
sustainable?" 

Ah ha.  Again, the answer is so utterly simple: 
Not everybody in the world is driven primarily 
by money-grabbing greed. 

Many people (and ever-increasing numbers) are far more interested 
in FREEDOM!, liberty, superior and more reliable performance, 
and even in helping each other ... than they are in sticking it to 
their fellow-man for every drop of blood they can squeeze out 
of their victims to make the already too rich even richer. 

Many people prefer to actually _earn_ the income that they receive 
by providing something real, genuine, tangible, and value-added, 
instead of seeking every way they can to rip-off everybody they can. 

This, I believe, is the key point that you apparently fail to understand. 

#5. You then correctly observe: 
"I see lots of commercial firms marketing open source solutions, 
making money on support." 

Apparently they understand something that you do not. 

"However, the population of developers outside of those firms make 
nothing on their work creating the code ... If developers can't make 
a living working to create innovative products, what's the point?" 

Well, first, you assume a fact not in evidence.  Contrary to your 
incorrect assertion, good open source developers usually do very 
well, indeed.  Key word: serving!  What goes around comes around. 

Ecclesiastes 11:1 
Not everybody is driven exclusively by money-grabbing greed. 

#6. You then correctly observe: 
"Open source proponents suggest that open source software 
is fast overtaking commercial software." 

But you asked: "If that true, where's the evidence?" 

Have you not noticed city after city and nation after nation 
making the switch? 

Wake up and smell the coffee. 

#7. Finally, you ask: 
"With the lack of a cohesive and coordinated development and 
support mechanism, why would anyone seriously consider using 
open source software to run a business?" 

The answer is (if you still haven't got the point): 
Open source software just works better 
and ... unlike the "commercial" alternative, 
open source software just keeps getting better -- 
a concept that seems to escape those who are focused 
primarily on maximizing profits at the expense of the user. 

Food for thought.