But first, I'd have to say you're somewhat misunderstanding the spirit of
free (or open source) software, as many developers see it. It ain't about free beer, the no-cost download, but about source transparency and community development leading to better software. I can download IE/WMP/etc. for
gratis but I specifically choose not to support monopolies that break the law over a 10-year period. In your opinion, just because OSS is transparent means it's not okay for Marty to complain about Mozilla because source code is available. But is it fair to complain about IE since we pay a Winblows license and can NOT participate in the development? I know you didn't say that explicitly, but it seems to be a logical conclusion of your stance.
It's fine if you don't weant to support monopolies, but by downloading mozilla and not working on the development, don't think that you're supporting the mozilla project. You're just leeching off the mozilla project, and that's fine, they expect most people to do that. However, if you want to complain about it, I don't think you can expect anyone to care if you're not working on development. These developers do this in thier spare time. They probably don't care about GTK. If they did, they probably wuld have used it in the first place. I wouldn't expect them to start doing QT development because someone who has contributed nothing thinks they should.
Back to the flawed analogy. Marty is saying he appreciates the qt toolkit and the KDE desktop and wonders why it isn't more popular with open source developers. He's not at all whining that developers won't adopt it for his benefit. That's why your response is ridiculous; you basically type cast him as a freeloading whining bizitch. Your analogy would be more accurate if you'd instead said,
Wintel box building geek -
"My Honda doesn't have power windows; they really should add them to next year's model."
How about "My honda that was given to me for free doesn't have power windows, next year's model, which I expect to also be given to me for free, should have them." Sure, he can say that if he wants, but he provides absolutely no incentive for anyone to add power windows to the car. Now, if he were to go volunteer 10 hours a week at Honda, he could probably get power windows added to next years model.
Just because software is easier to upgrade doesn't mean the user is whining about free & instant gratification. Furthermore, you assume that the implementation of power windows is already completed, and it's just a matter of payment for installation. Whereas in the case of software, the redesign and implementation do not even exist. A comparable response in the car situation would indeed be ludicrous if it was analogous to the software situation,
"Marty, why don't you cut open the doors of your Honda and design your own power windows system from scratch? Or just fork over money to the ricer teenager down the street to figure it out." Obviously, either request (redesigning software or designing power windows from scratch) is prohibitively expensive.
Well, that's true that there's more than tacking on a prebuilt component, but power windows, (and the GUI element of an app) are relatively small parts of the whole, and they can be designed and added onto a product without that much hassle. I'll turn your attention to chimera, which is a mozilla based browser using apple's cocoa interface for OS X
At any rate, when I personally pay money to a Linux company, I don't expect them to do a thing for me down the road. It's a small token of gratitude for the release of good open-source software (I realize a large number of free software developers never see any of that revenue) and also support of fair competition in the marketplace. Yet my purchase makes me no more involved in free software development than the granny down the street who doesn't own a PC.
Your purchase helps keeps progreammers employed, I'd say that contrbutes to software development.
Free software or otherwise, people benefit from using software and complain about its shortcomings all the time. I don't see why they should be slammed if they don't actively participate in the process because the source code is transparent. As I touched upon earlier, you seem to place more emphasis on the economics of a download rather than the open, collaborate development model that's much more fundamental. If he's qualified, maybe Marty would get more involved in some capacity to promote qt over the Internet, but it's none of your or my business if he just wants to download & use the stuff. Nor if he expresses an interest in seeing specific features being developed that could enhance the experience.
Maybe you have cause to be annoyed at the stereotype you've portrayed, but I didn't see your response as commensurate to Marty's innocent question. At the worst, you could mock him for merely suggesting what the KDE team should do, but like he said, you're taking this overly seriously.
Maybe you're right, I really don't have beef with marty or this question in particular, but the "open source is so great even though I'll never do any more than download stuff for free" attitude. 
Facebook
Twitter