A programmer that works on a single company's software has an incentive to work to improve it, rather than get simply get paid, as he is out of a job if the software fails. This is similar to a standing army--there will always be outliers, but more or less everyone is committed to achieving the final goal.
Mercenaries in both software and armies aren't interested in the goal--only the money. As their incentive is different, their output will be different. Just as I wouldn't trust mercenaries to follow the geneva conventions, I wouldn't expect software mercenaries to be focused on code clarity and bug prevention. Once the software works, they want their money, and they want out (Han Solo Syndrome).
As open-source developers today generally contribute from a general sense of goodwill and their personal interest in seeing the project succeed, they have much the same output as those in the rank and file. If I was going to add them to my (already quite strained) metaphor, they would probably be somewhere between the Peace Corps and Militiamen--committed to the cause, regardless of payout.
I realize that this metaphor is becoming a stretch, but I still think it rings true. There is a distinct difference between those doing work because of a commitment, those doing work because of a belief, and those doing work simply for money.
I disagree. A mercenary in your metaphor is essentially a contractor. Contractors have a more direct incentive to do well that a coder at a company. On a team (i.e. a company) slackers can bet on someone else pulling in their slack while a contractor (at least any that are successful in the long run) need to develop trust in their clients. If they don't then they won't get hired again and they won't get good word of mouth which is the primary way to get more business.
I guess this boils down to your premise that contractors are only working for money while someone working at a company is working for more than money. You have to make the case for this premise which seems wrong to me.
A programmer that works on a single company's software has an incentive to work to improve it, rather than get simply get paid, as he is out of a job if the software fails. This is similar to a standing army--there will always be outliers, but more or less everyone is committed to achieving the final goal.
Mercenaries in both software and armies aren't interested in the goal--only the money. As their incentive is different, their output will be different. Just as I wouldn't trust mercenaries to follow the geneva conventions, I wouldn't expect software mercenaries to be focused on code clarity and bug prevention. Once the software works, they want their money, and they want out (Han Solo Syndrome).
As open-source developers today generally contribute from a general sense of goodwill and their personal interest in seeing the project succeed, they have much the same output as those in the rank and file. If I was going to add them to my (already quite strained) metaphor, they would probably be somewhere between the Peace Corps and Militiamen--committed to the cause, regardless of payout.
I realize that this metaphor is becoming a stretch, but I still think it rings true. There is a distinct difference between those doing work because of a commitment, those doing work because of a belief, and those doing work simply for money.