21–30 of 42 posts
Isn't it only possible to install as a binary blob, so not open source? Nothing against the engine itself by the way, which is awesome.
Linux has blobs, is it not open source?
Soon the book "A New Kind of Open Source" by Stephen Wolfram
Tangential, but I read A New Kind of Science a few years ago. The topic is very interesting, and the cellular automata stuff seems pretty cool, but the first chapter for it is borderline hilarious. It spends pretty much the entire time telling you how revolutionary the book is, acting like no one has ever been this clever in their entire lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangential, but I read A New Kind of Science a few years ago. The topic is very interesting, and the cellular automata stuff seems pretty cool, but the first chapter for it is borderline hilarious. It spends pretty much the entire time telling you how revolutionary the book is, acting like no one has ever been this clever in their entire lives.
Wolfram's arrogance is really a kind of meme at this point, a new kind of meme if you will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux has blobs, is it not open source?
There are plenty of distros of Linux that have fully removed binary blobs [1]. As far as I am aware, it wouldn't be allowed to fork Mathematica and remove all proprietary blobs. [1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of distros of Linux that have fully removed binary blobs [1]. As far as I am aware, it wouldn't be allowed to fork Mathematica and remove all proprietary blobs. [1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
Realistically though nobody uses those, and every project like that such as BSD gets used as a base for proprietary software. Do they even support TRIM?
It's perfectly valid to criticize the kernel maintainers for including binary blobs, it certainly annoys me, but it's not equivalent to what Wolfram does with Mathematica.
----
I actually used Trisquel for about a year. It was fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux has blobs, is it not open source?
the blobs certainly aren't. but thats just certain drivers. everything else is.
Wolfram language is basically as open source as Mongo or Elastic. Which is to say, the source is open and they want the clout of being open source, but it isn't open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wolfram's arrogance is really a kind of meme at this point, a new kind of meme if you will.
I find it kind of weird. Didn't Wolfram get a doctorate at like age 19? And have a successful company pretty shortly afterwards? Why does he act so insecure and feel the need to brag about himself all the time...what could he possibly even be insecure about?
I find it likeable to be honest, like a friend who brag often and fell flat each time, so it is clearly working.
Reason's it's "like" FOSS: > You can use it for free ...Within certain restrictions. Also, lots of proprietary stuff is available for free or close enough. > You can view the source code There's actually sort of fair, although it only extends to the functions in the language; "Older or core functions written in C are not viewable this way", and I doubt this extends to the underlying engine. > You can modify it Again,…
Because this development is sponsored by old customers; I haven't heard about anyone choosing DB2 for a new project.
Reason's it's "like" FOSS: > You can use it for free ...Within certain restrictions. Also, lots of proprietary stuff is available for free or close enough. > You can view the source code There's actually sort of fair, although it only extends to the functions in the language; "Older or core functions written in C are not viewable this way", and I doubt this extends to the underlying engine. > You can modify it Again,…
> IBM still develops Db2, y'know. Because this development is sponsored by old customers; I haven't heard about anyone choosing DB2 for a new project.