I don't think there has ever been a profession that has killed itself like software developers who are just giving everything away for free.

I've heard it argued that dentistry is a field where they are also working to put themselves out of business. Hence the need to come up with new services (bleaching, etc.).

As industries mature, they need fewer people. That's why it's important to continually come up with new and better products and services. Free software is great for building a baseline infrastructure for future advancements. But it's generally not the way to inspire someone to take risks and strike out to build their new empire and make millions. As you say, everyone in software can't be in support.

Remember when Ford ruled with the [link|http://www.musclecarclub.com/other-cars/classic/ford-model-t/ford-model-t.shtml|Model T]? Whenever Chevrolet or some other manufacturer seemed to be making an inroad on Henry's market share, he'd simply drop the price of the Model T. It worked great for a while - but eventually low cost (as low as $290) wasn't enough. It's similar with software. It's hard to compete with free, but it can be done. I suspect many/most software houses (even Microsoft) will eventually move to the Trolltech-type model where there's a free version and a less-restrictive/more-capable/better-supported version that costs $$$. The free version will help maintain market interest (and keep pressure on competitors) while the pay version will keep people employed. Note that this model is used by The Economist as well - there's a relatively inexpensive weekly [link|http://www.economist.com/|news magazine] and an expensive, business-oriented research arm (the [link|http://store.eiu.com/index.asp|Economist Intelligence Unit]).

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.