I think you missed my point about "corporate code dumps". The derogatory way you put it makes
it clear you think corporate contributions are somehow inferior. This sort of attitude is why
free desktop software may remain a niche for a longer than it needs to. The two most
prominent desktop open source projects that I can think of (Firefox and OpenOffice) started
off lives as proprietary.
Regarding the Second Life viewer beta, I'll remind you that "alpha" and "beta" are just
labels, and while we're not ready to take the "beta" label off yet, the software runs as well
or better than just about any other 3D software on Linux. It's just not up to the level of
our Mac and Windows products. Making production quality software available on *any* platform
is hard, and making it on Linux (with OSS/ESD/ALSA/PulseAudio/whatever system comes next) and
video driver issues (which 3D apps are very sensitive to), it's even harder on Linux.
With respect to Ryzom, we might actually be in agreement, but for different reasons, I think.
Ryzom enthusiasts should absolutely be pooling their money to help free the software that
they're so enthusiastic about. However, anyone who isn't already a Ryzom user (like the FSF,
for example) should be very skeptical of investing money in this cause. The free software
community already has plenty of momentum and alternatives in this area. The Ryzom codebase is
now going through its second financial crisis. Banking on Ryzom plays into a far more toxic
stereotype than the one you've identified, which is "open source is the refuge for losers who
can't cut it in the proprietary world". Efforts in the corporate open source world should be
on efforts that have proven revenue models to fuel development. It's one thing to free the
source code, giving developers access to the source code, but it's so much better to then be
able to pay the most productive developers (and QA, and project managers, and documentation
writers, and usability specialists) to improve it for a living.