You don't have to talk to people when you're playing music with them.
Introversion isn't simply about not talking to people. Being in a public, social setting takes its toll in similar ways -- keeping your game face on, and not being yourself in many other ways. It's true that making music gets you into that geek mode even if it's with other people, but in a band/theatre you have lots of intense interactions with people you wouldn't have when simply hanging out with them.
Being an introvert does not mean you hide in your room, hate people and avoid talking to everyone.
I consider myself quite introverted, but some of my favourite hobbies are theatre and music (like playing in a band), which are rather social activities. I'm interested in things rather than people, but it turns out some of these things are best done with other people. The main difference is when others go to a bar after the day's rehearsals; I generally can't join them as I've already exhausted my social quota for the day.
In fact, I do have some social needs, but I find these are best served by actually doing something interesting with people. Simply hanging out is just boring, unless it's in a small group of sufficiently close and interesting people. Then you can basically stay in an introverted mode.
if each generation exercised their right to bear arms, eventually the trait would be passed on to future generations.
The most important thing for me is absolute addressing of workspaces. Don't think of them as 'going to the next or previous one (or worse, a grid). No, think of it as "My browser is on tab 4", "My chat client and music client are on tab 5". "My editor/IDE is on tab 1", etc. This makes switching between contexts insanely fast and completely painless. You don't need to hunt&pick with your mouse, scroll through lists, etc.
Ditto. Incidentally, when I got started with Linux, the default (with Gnome at the time) was a 2x2 space where you'd select each quadrant by number. Of course it could be extended, but there was still the idea of spatial organization, e.g. so you could move windows smoothly between adjacent areas. I still maintain the spatial idea with my Alt-F# desktops, even though I no longer use such a model, and I think of certain screens being "down below".
First of all, free software isn't about making money. In many ways it's about saving money and other resources, like not reinventing the wheel all the time. A lot of people are better off when the corporation doesn't have to waste money on propriatary software. For example, lower prices for customers.
Also, there isn't much locking up going on. A lot of the free software is licensed under BSD, MIT etc. which permits inclusion in closed products. With GPL software, companies are still free to use it to make a shitload of money, and in-house modifications need not be distributed, as long as the software itself isn't. Of course, a lot of businesses actually contribute back to free software, even with no strict obligations.
* Free developers mostly want to solve their own problems.
I think a lot of this has to do with the developer mindset. You think of the computer as a tool which can be used to make all kinds of wonderful things, as long as you learn to use it. When you write a nice piece of software, you often want to keep it somewhat general to anticipate future needs. This is when it may get interesting, when other developers find your code and apply it for something unexpected.
With free software, there's no point in having nice, well-defined "apps" because the ecosystem as a whole is much more powerful. For any given task, you can generally find a combination of free software that beats any single app for that use. Of course, putting it all together is not always trivial; you generally need to think about your task carefully.
Moreover, a single-use app is a developmental dead end. It won't have the potential to launch an avalanche of further development, at least not in this ecosystem sense.
so many schools have jettisoned much of the cannon
Ah, the days when a University was a true fortress of wisdom.
Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.