1) Beta test.<p>For example, the Firefox and Chrome nightlies:<p><a href="http://nightly.mozilla.org/" rel="nofollow">http://nightly.mozilla.org/</a><p><a href="http://tools.google.com/dlpage/chromesxs" rel="nofollow">http://tools.google.com/dlpage/chromesxs</a><p>A couple million hackers can help "upgrade" the Internet every day.<p>2) Ask/answer questions. You're making it a lot easier for the next guy.<p>How can I do X in Linux?<p><a href="http://superuser.com/" rel="nofollow">http://superuser.com/</a><p><a href="http://askubuntu.com/" rel="nofollow">http://askubuntu.com/</a><p>How can I do Y in Gimp?<p>How can I do Z in Inkscape?<p><a href="http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/" rel="nofollow">http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/</a>
this is a well-meaning but badly misguided stance to take. open source is a gift economy, and as one of the "producers" i am more than happy for people to accept the gifts i'm freely putting out there. the reward is getting to feel that i have made their lives better (and that too at no incremental cost to myself). in my role as a consumer, i likewise know that there are people out there happy that they have made <i>my</i> life better. there is absolutely no need to make people feel bad about taking from open source if they don't have the time or inclination to give anything back - that just cheapens the idea of a gift.<p>now would i <i>like</i> people to contribute by way of code, money or bug reports? definitely. but they should do so because that is a gift <i>they</i> wish to give to the ecosystem-at-large, not out of some sense of reciprocal obligations.