Getting money for Gnucash development [was Re: Newbie migration issues]

[TC]

 > I also have no idea how to counteract the FUD of moving away from
> Quicken.

Actually, when I think about it, it's not really FUD that's the issue. 
Quicken is simply a Very Good application.

Mozilla, especially in the form of Firefox and Thunderbird, really does 
offer something (e.g. security) that is lacking in the equivalent MS 
offering.  But Gnucash doesn't, I think, have the same differentiator 
w.r.t. Quicken.

What Gnucash *does* provide is a quality finance package for GNU/Linux.

Which also means that the lack of a Windows port is not relevant.  If 
having a certain number of users was necessary to make obtaining 
sufficient funding possible, then I reckon it is, for all practical 
purposes, *GNU/Linux* users that matter.

But maybe all of this is conceding too much ground.  Perhaps the trick 
here is not to get money to allow the existing developers to go full 
time.  Instead, perhaps it is to figure out why there aren't more 
non-full-time developers. I'm basing this on the hypothesis that even if 
Mozilla didn't have funding, it would still have a lot of developers. 
Surely the linux kernel shows that serious unfunded development is possible?

And I would have thought that if a young coder, with spare time on 
his/her hands, wanted to hack on some worthwhile and valued OSS project, 
a Quicken-for-Linux would be one of the top three projects (the other 
two being the kernel itself, and something like Chandler).

So, how come it doesn't?

[And it's no use me answering - I can't program for toffee; that's why 
I'm not involved.  And by the looks of things, helping out in something 
like Gnucash requires serious ability, or time to acquire it. But what 
about those who *can* already code?]

tc