Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#81

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:19 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #21

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

[deleted]

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#82

Post by crazypython » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:19 PM UTC

silvestrov wrote: post #12

TLDR: some types of software needs more than programming. omitted TLDR: some of the above can only be done by paying people money to do them. Company needs income for that. omitted exibit: why haven't Gimp thrown Photoshop, Pixelmater and others from the throne. If programmers were the only people needed, then all those commercial image editors would be gone from the market. (but a unix shell only needs programming b…

Blender has thrown other software out the window.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#83

Post by aj7 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

No. Most of these are about the power of paying another economic actor has on aligning his interests with yours. Open source software is huge partially because software companies have failed at this.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#84

Post by EMIRELADERO » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #21

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

How about just sticking a proprietary, "source available" license in the source and including it on the product download? Developement stays private, control stays in their hands, and it's still proprietary.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#85

Post by Ologn » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #21

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

> The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success.

The name Sun Microsystems is one that I, and most people, associated with microsystems - with workstations (and servers). Sun was founded in 1982 with Bill Joy as a founder, who was already a renowned programmer from CSRG. Andy Bechtolsheim had an exciting hardware design. Vinod Khosla and Scott McNealy risked starting a new company, and had enough chops to manage it into a success. Sun IPOd in 1986. Sun almost bought Apple right before Java was released.

Java was released in 1995. Sun Microsystems already had over a billion and a half dollars in revenue a quarter, which was pretty good at the time.

One reason for Java was protective - Sun wanted a language people could run on workstations and servers that it had some say over. A free, open source language was part of that, it helped in its adoption. Java was more of a defensive move, that Sun wouldn't be locked out of some kind of language ecosystem controlled by Microsoft or Netscape or other companies.

Sun wasn't a software company, they were a hardware company that released a product to defend their hardware from being locked out of competitor's ecosystems. They also weren't in a position to put out a computer language and force programmers onto it, being free and open source, and the ability to run on multiple platforms helped in its acceptance. Being able to run on multiple platforms was the whole point, they didn't want people to get locked into the Microsoft ecosystem with the release of NT 3.51 etc.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#86

Post by vlovich123 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #21

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

Counter: Android is open source.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#87

Post by mabbo » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

The real reason is very clear to me: Wolfram builds a fairly unique and complicated product. Their advantage comes largely from a very narrow market with few competitors.

Releasing the source would deprive them of that advantage, which has financial implications. The benefits of additional contributors might not outweigh the potential loss from competition.

The article is a typical critique of open source generally, and one can debate how true or false each point is, but it's not relevant to the real reasons. It's just a smokescreen over "we'd think we'll make more money this way".

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#88

Post by analognoise » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #27

paxys wrote: post #7

Most of their points are valid for community driven open source projects but the existence of large corporate ones like Chrome, Android, .net, VS Code, Tensorflow and lots more prove that exerting tight central control while being fully open source is very much possible.

This seems too obvious to repeat, but Google and Microsoft fund Chrome and VS Code through the profits from their other products like Search and Windows. Wolfram doesn't have that, and most businesses don't. It's very easy for us say "just make it open source" if we don't have to come up with a way of paying people! Just come up with a different business that makes hundreds of millions of dollars and use that to pay…

Exactly this.

Oh just be a world beating, industry leading, technical titan of a company with multiple revenue streams and you can afford to give away some code to make us all happy.

Wolfram just has to launch an operating system, a search engine, a line of mobile phones and laptops, a cloud services unit, and sure then they'll give away Mathematica, what the hell why not?

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#89

Post by FemmeAndroid » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

MintPaw wrote: post #23

chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

I don't really understand the definition of open source. I used to hear people say stuff along the lines of "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real open source" But the opinion on that has changed I guess?

I’ve got to agree with you here. While I personally agree with the people commenting about open source being about the license rather than governance, I do not think that was always as widely accepted as it currently is in this comments section. I recall seeing a lot of hostility from people in the past about governance of a licensed project not being in line with ‘open source values,’ for example.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#90

Post by mateo1 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

VHRanger wrote: post #8

1 - 11: $$ 12. Doesn't want to show the world how bad the codebase is. Seriously, Mathematica makes naïve python code seem blazingly fast I've had the displeasure of porting 4k sloc of Mathematica to python and the script runtime went from 40min to 5sec.

I don't understand why this comment is so high up. It's just really naive to compare mathematica and python on runtime speed as if they're both tools used for the same purpose. Whether you like their choice of syntax or not, wolframs tools are state of the art on what they do. Just don't hammer your nails in with screwdrivers.