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

261–270 of 316 posts

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

#261

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

bsder wrote: post #237
sokoloff wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KiCAD is another package that I think is fairly competitive at this point. It’s not going to kill Altium, but it’s improved greatly in the last 3 years.

I actually disagree and think Altium will, in fact, be Victim #001 of KiCad. The question becomes: "Is Altium thousand dollars better than KiCad?" And a lot of the time the answer will now be "No." I already split my designs about 50/50 between Altium and KiCad--and that's before KiCad 6.0 which is imminent (6.0RC2 exists right now ). 1) KiCad has one killer feature: it's cross platform. I would argue that this will,…

KiCad's library management isn't powerful enough for (most) commercial work. It has a good foundation but there is too much critical functionality that is not implemented yet.

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

#262

Post by pclmulqdq »

bsder wrote: post #237
sokoloff wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KiCAD is another package that I think is fairly competitive at this point. It’s not going to kill Altium, but it’s improved greatly in the last 3 years.

I actually disagree and think Altium will, in fact, be Victim #001 of KiCad. The question becomes: "Is Altium thousand dollars better than KiCad?" And a lot of the time the answer will now be "No." I already split my designs about 50/50 between Altium and KiCad--and that's before KiCad 6.0 which is imminent (6.0RC2 exists right now ). 1) KiCad has one killer feature: it's cross platform. I would argue that this will,…

Not having linux support is a big self-own for Altium. Its main high-end competitor, Cadence OrCAD/Allegro, has top-tier Linux support. Altium tried to do a "365" thing like Microsoft, and I doubt that's really what Altium users want.

Altium was about to be a good high-end piece of software until they did this. Now it's homeless and it will lose to KiCAD for low-end things and Cadence for high-end.

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

#263

Post by DantesKite »

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.

Working for money certainly beats working for free.

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

#264

Post by pingsl »

oolonthegreat wrote: post #167
snird wrote: post #128

Their more recent post titled "Six Reasons Why the Wolfram Language Is (Like) Open Source"[1] is even more cringey. Is this directed to managers who need to link to a reasoning against other managers making the claim for open-source alternatives? If so, this assumes those managers aren't that competent, which is insultiong at best. 1: https://blog.wolfram.com/2021/11/30/six-reasons-why-the-wolf...

I laughed so hard at this. It's like "We took all the good parts of being open source, and the good parts of NOT being open source".

Both of the two blogs are very convincible. The only question to me is which one I should share with my friends?

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

#265

Post by Arcsech »

kube-system wrote: post #217
Arcsech wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you’re worried about this, there are source-available licenses like SSPL or Elastic License v2 explicitly designed to prevent this, and which have seemingly been successful at doing so. The exact choice of license would depend on the kind of thing you’re worried about.

I mostly agree, at least in the current day where the powerful companies in context are [x]aaS companies, but now you’re going down a road where people will argue whether OSI/FSF are legitimate gatekeepers of the definition of “Open Source”

That’s exactly why I used the phrase “source-available”, not “open source” - because those licenses aren’t recognized by the OSI. I’m actually of the opinion that if AGPL is open source, SSPL is too, no matter what some dorkwads as the OSI say. But I’m employed by a company that uses the SSPL, so I try to use the generally accepted phrasing to avoid being accused of “sowing confusion”.

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

#266

Post by monsieurbanana »

smoldesu wrote: post #245
monsieurbanana wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah. So what's in it for them?

Free QA/testing, a community of users who can submit patches, word-of-mouth marketing, a large install-base, opportunity to sell support to high-value clients.

What's in it for them, if it turns out the community forks their project and do it better than them?

I don't see it as a sound argument.

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

#267

Post by commoner »

Semaphor wrote: post #260
derefr wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misread something? What you just gave is the definition of the term “source available.” I’ll restate. My descriptivist definition of the term “open-source”, was that something is “open-source” if you are free to do at least one of either forking the thing for your own use, or modifying the thing and pushing those modifications upstream. In other words, “open-source” software is software where you’re free…

> specifically, the OSI considers GPL-licensed software to not be capital-letters “Open Source” What? OSI disagrees with you.

Yes, here's a list of licenses approved by the OSI as open source, which includes the GPL and AGPL:

https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

"Free software", "open source software", and "free and open source software" are often used interchangeably because they refer to software that is largely protected by the same set of licenses. The terms differ by emphasizing different aspects of the philosophy behind FOSS.[1]

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

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

#268

Post by ryanobjc »

bborud wrote: post #189
analog31 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to make it mainstream would require making it different. The number of people who actually have a use for Mathematica is pretty small. Very few people understand both math and programming. Most people who can program are already employed as programmers. In a larger organization, rather than buying 10 licenses for 200 bucks each, it's better to buy 1 license for 2000 bucks and have everybody bring their math w…

Well, let's for arguments sake consider the most important demographic in my mind: me :-). (That's what most people do anyway). Joking aside. I'd love to make Mathematica part of my toolbox, but the steep pricing makes me think about all the other software I pay license fees on that I depend on, and I need another software expense like I need a third buttock. If it wasn't a recurring license, or a recurring license a…

I tried to do this for a few years. I really tried, I renewed, I did various analysis in it... But it's really hard to make it performant on data processing tasks, learning how to do things efficiently in the language.

The curated data is... honestly a little basic and overrated imo. If you are doing general work, maybe their population info is ok, but you don't really know the source of the data entirely, when it was acquired, etc. If you are doing real research, it's not gonna cut it.

I wanted to do analysis of ethereum, but their blockchain library was incredibly weak. It did not support reading data at given block ids (ie: historical analysis), and when I requested the feature the answer was basically "maybe in the next major revision."

I'm not a fan of python, but I went there. I used typed python, which ultimately I think the best solution moving forward is probably typescript, since typed python has a lot of type holes in it :-/

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

#269

Post by commoner »

derefr wrote: post #143
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.

Wolfram here were contrasting their model against the idea that products like Mathematica could have been developed in a fully “open source” manner. (It’s a false binary, but it’s what they’re doing.) “Open source” is a different thing than “source-available” or “shared-source.” Many closed-source products are “source-available” in the manner you’re talking about, but this does not make them “open source.” You’re not…

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was phrased as precisely as it could have been. I agree that Wolfram is criticizing community-based software development, and using that reasoning to incompletely justify its decision to not release its source code. Wolfram could have made their software source-available without making it open source, and their page doesn't directly address this middle ground.

As others have said, #1 is not really necessary since no open source project needs to accept contributions from anyone. #2, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary because open source software must allow users the freedom to copy, modify, and use the code as they wish.

> (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.)

However, software under licenses that forbid users from using the code for certain purposes (including commercial purposes) are not open source. Both the OSI[1] and the FSF[2] object to this type of restriction. Allowing arbitrary restrictions on use would raise the question of the types of discrimination that should be allowed in FOSS licenses, which is something many in the free and open source software community prefer not to deal with.

[1] https://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling: “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

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

#270

Post by rg111 »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #252
rg111 wrote: post #183

Let me tell you how tens of thousands, and eventually hundreds of thousands of students totally skipped Wolfram products and proprietary science products in general. Wolfram products are very highly priced, even much more so for the Indian market. Indian science and engineering colleges are usually very poorly funded save some IITs and premier provincial universities. There is no way in hell these colleges could ever…

This article isn’t about the pricing of wolfram software. The price they charge is what it costs to develop, host, and support the software, plus innovate on it. They can’t lower their prices substantially for individual markets. Best to just petition universities harder to arrange this software as software these days is as fundamental to education as the buildings we learn in.

> They can’t lower their prices substantially for individual markets.

This comment isn't about me wanting them to lower their prices for any market.

> plus innovate on it

Please. I would take an Open Source software anyday over Wolfram or Mathworks software. They are objectively much better.

> Best to just petition universities harder to arrange this software

In case it wasn't clear from my original comment, I am glad, that Indian unis skipped wasting money on such sub-quality software.

I am just mentioning that it is their loss. It is not the loss of the students or unis that cannot afford these.

Post reply on HN