We develop software and solutions because we need them, not to earn money.
It is a rather convenient position to have the taxpayer keeping care of your bill, but not everyone is in this pleasant position. Norway has enough oil (yet) to fund you at this time, but you should try - at least for a while - to work in the industry, just a bit, to see the other side of the medal.
I've done both, actually. Currently, I'm pretty much in the same position as you right now (so I'm happy), but I'm not as arrogant as you to state that closed source development has to be damned. I believe a good software engineer should be able to make a living (which you cannot, in Amiga land, let's face it, even less with users like you), and not a living from the taxpayer but from his customers.
Both development models have their drawbacks and merrits. Pick the one that suits your case best. As far as public positions are concerned, we're here clearly stating that the tax payer paid for it, so should have access to it. That's fair, too.
But that does not mean that I ignore the need for people to create closed source software; its development is often quicker and driven by the market, not by some abstract funding goals you'll get from the latest university project. It's a much harder life in private industry, and I would wish you could appreciate that at some point when you grow older and wiser. You should have done that to appreciate how hard work has to go into products compared to the cozy job you have.
This being said, I'm really set up by how arrogantly you deny the choices of the original authors. *This* makes me mad. Not the usual sales talk on Open Source - that's just a choice of your business model and I'm fine with whatever fits your needs. There are markets where open source works, and others where it does not.
