Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

blog.wolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 316 posts

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

#201

Post by [deleted] »

Shikadi wrote: post #162
MintPaw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the source is available to anyone, it's open source. That is independent of the licensing model. Saying "That's not real open source" is just gatekeeping. There are different licenses, and when you insert the word "freedom", then you can start talking about how free said OSS is. It would be much more acceptable to say "If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real _free_ open source"…

[deleted]

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

#202

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jimmyvalmer wrote: post #186
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, everyone here over 40 would prefer going back in time to closed-source. Yes, M$ would still reign supreme, but at least the buck you made was an honest quid pro quo, and not accessory to the surveillance economy. That's a very strong claim. MS sucked without FOSS competition, and is quite happy to drive the surveillance economy.

Classic ignoratio elenchi triggered by emotional response to M$.

Your claim was that

> at least the buck you made was an honest quid pro quo, and not accessory to the surveillance economy.

and I contend that MS would happily run the surveillance economy just as much while leaving everything else worse off. Not ignoratio elenchi at all.

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

#203

Post by alok-g »

rwmj wrote: post #32

Firstly I think if Wolfram wants to keep Mathematica closed source, that's his choice and I have no problem with it. But, doesn't this indicate quite a poor architecture? Mathematica appears to be (or should be) composed of many different mathematical modules and capabilities that it can do. It should be possible to develop those separately while retaining a centrally controlled "beautiful" architecture to bind it al…

>> doesn't this indicate quite a poor architecture

In my opinion (I've used Mathematica heavily), no. My best guess, they are able to develop the modules and capabilities separately, i.e., divided cleanly into multiple teams. Their choice of keeping it closed source is orthogonal and does not indicate a poor architecture.

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

#204

Post by leephillips »

klelatti wrote: post #79

I’m sorry to say that I was shocked by this article. I have no objection to Wolfram remaining closed source - if they prefer that model and want to make money from it then it’s up to them. However, that they feel that they have to justify this by implying that their approach is clearly superior to open source in innovation, long term commitment and user experience I’m afraid leaves me with a rather negative impressio…

You might be slightly tardy to the party: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13963287

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

#205

Post by DangitBobby »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #132

Well, that's a cancelled subscription from me. I have no problem with them not being Open Source, but these arguments are all orthogonal to being Open Source. There is a valid argument for not being Open Source: "We think a proprietary program with a monthly license fee is the best business model for our company and product." You say that, I respect you. You bring a bunch of bad arguments, I lose trust.

This was written two years ago. Why would you cancel a subscription over it if their software works for you?

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

#206

Post by leephillips »

jimmyvalmer wrote: post #171

Only relevant sentence: "Salaries are a good motivation." I feel sorry for the schlubs who have to write these corporate blogs. Also, everyone here over 40 would prefer going back in time to closed-source. Yes, M$ would still reign supreme, but at least the buck you made was an honest quid pro quo, and not accessory to the surveillance economy.

Perhaps this is irony that's too subtle for me. But I’m way over 40 and the open source movement made everything that I enjoy about computing possible.

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

#207

Post by anchpop »

sudosysgen wrote: post #185
jasode wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? [...] how releasing your source lead to bad design? The way to interpret his argument is to imagine an alternate past history where Mathematica was open source from the beginning and how that would have lead to an inferior product. He wrote: >[...] I think that it would…

Probably the exception is Blender, which is a big, complex GUI with gobs of features and is very compétitive.

true, why is blender special? it was originally a closed source program with a small community that became open source later, but it’s evolved massively since then and become much more polished and easier to use, which virtually no open source project can say

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

#208

Post by samhw »

rwmj wrote: post #39
leeoniya wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you just release the source and don't accept patches then that's not real open source this is commonly referred to as "source available".

Not necessarily. There are some true open source projects where the development model is some company "throwing code over the wall". Often they don't make it easy or even possible for anyone outside the company to contribute, they don't have an open repository or bug tracker, release only periodic tarballs, etc. But the license is OSI approved, such as GPL, BSD, etc. so in theory someone could fork the project. TL;DR…

> There are some true open source projects where the development model is some company "throwing code over the wall". Often they don't make it easy or even possible for anyone outside the company to contribute[...]

Google's V8 engine is essentially an example of this, though they do notionally have some framework for outside contributions (https://v8.dev/docs/contribute).

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

#209

Post by unethical_ban »

kube-system wrote: post #191
rp1 wrote: post #6

Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even have posted this. Obviously they want to make money from their products, and that’s fine.

> You can release the source but still maintain central control. Until someone with a larger budget than you forks it and uses their immense resources to force you out of the market. Then you liquidate your company and someone else gets the rights to maintain your fork.

I think this is an underrated point that has been more noticeable with AWS in particular. Their own CentOS spin, their own ElasticSearch distro, their own elastic cloud, etc.

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

#210

Post by civilized »

kube-system wrote: post #191
rp1 wrote: post #6

Almost none of the reasons have anything to do with releasing the source. You can release the source but still maintain central control. They shouldn’t even have posted this. Obviously they want to make money from their products, and that’s fine.

> You can release the source but still maintain central control. Until someone with a larger budget than you forks it and uses their immense resources to force you out of the market. Then you liquidate your company and someone else gets the rights to maintain your fork.

There is zero chance that Wolfram's products would be "stolen" in this way. No one is interested in developing them but Stephen Wolfram.
Post reply on HN