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

281–290 of 316 posts

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

#281

Post by floatboth »

derefr wrote: post #251
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating "open source" with "open contribution". https://github.com/jgraph/drawio#open-source-not-open-contri... explains it neatly: > Similar to SQLite, diagrams.net is open source but closed to contributions. > The level of complexity of this project means that even simple changes can break a lot of other moving parts. The amount of testing required is far more than it first seems. If we were to receive a…

No; see my second point definition. A thing is open source if, essentially, people are free to re-mix it; whether that be by modifying it upstream, or by forking it downstream. If there is no ability to make changes and then legally use your own changed version, then the thing is not open source in the way any developer would understand the term.

Yes, but "whether" is kinda weird here. The first (community development) requires the second (open sorce). If upstream can accept your contributions, this means you've already forked it for yourself.

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

#282

Post by floatboth »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #261
bsder wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure if/how this is improved in KiCad 6 but from the KiCad 5 tutorials I've seen, "manually match symbols to footprints" was its approach to library management :/

I'm learning PCB design with https://github.com/horizon-eda/horizon instead — and here library (pool) management comes first. You actually place full "parts" (that associate symbols and footprints and other metadata) onto schematics — and if you don't want to decide on a particular model number, you can still place a "base" part (e.g. "generic 5k resistor") and change it later. Oh, and the schematic editor actually edits nets, rather than what KiCad does (seemingly just a basic CAD drawing that gets analyzed into a netlist as a very separate explicit step).

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

#283

Post by specialist »

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…

> ...allows people to fork it, add their own changes...

Emphatic agreement.

Bryan Cantrill touched on this too:

"...we [now] know that OpenSolaris didn’t go far enough: even though the right to fork was understood, there was not enough attention paid to the power to fork. As a result, the operating system never quite got to being 100% open"

http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2010/08/03/opensolaris-and-the-p...

I experienced this first hand while being paid to work on FOSS. At the time, I just couldn't figure out why our very well resourced, well intentioned project was chowdering. Cantrill's illuminating insight, per usual, was spot on.

--

To the pedants arguing with u/derefr: Stop it. Step back, get curious, ask u/derefr to clarify. u/derefr is trying to say something important.

Some of us have actual experience with this stuff, not covered in the manual. It often takes great effort to reflect and articulate novel experiences. Especially when those experiences don't meet anyone's expectations.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

--

Further, definitions, rules, bylaws, and code of conducts are just starting points. Ever DM a role playing game? Tried to get your local party to approve a resolution? Had your day in court?

As if some formal definition somewhere is the last word on running a successful FOSS project. Please.

Human projects are at least as complicated as the humans themselves.

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

#284

Post by nathias »

jasode wrote: post #116
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.

>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…

If you include other succesfull open source projects, like Blender, the pattern is no longer there ...

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

#285

Post by detaro »

mountainriver wrote: post #230
detaro wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling that one of your examples is one that took the step to relicense their product under a not-open-source license.

Take a look at the CNCF, all of those products are open source and many of them are lucrative. Elasticsearch is still open source they just wanted to buck companies like Amazon from taking advantage of them, which is fine by me

Elastic search is not open source anymore. It's not under an open source license.

I'm all for open source products (I both work on and make large use of such products), but this "just open source it, you can make a business out of it anyways!" without further constraints is IMHO misguided. Open-source business models are challenging, and that needs to be recognized.

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

#286

Post by bborud »

analog31 wrote: post #194
bborud wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed, in my case, I've got my basic toolchain installed on more than a half dozen computers. At work, I do hardware related R&D, so I need my tools at multiple workstations in the lab. At home, a work-at-home computer and a personal computer. If I share something, my victims need to install their own copy of the tools. Then there's the whole world of code running on microcontrollers, which is how I prototype hardwa…

You point out something extremely important here: the ability to share work with other people. Tool-use tends to promote or limit networked effects. If I'm the only one who can afford Mathematica in a given context where I collaborate with other people, then we won't be using Mathematica. Simple as that.

On the flip side: If I introduce a tool in a networked context, my enthusiasm may well end up converting dozens of other people.

I think Wolfram could have built a much broader and more stable revenue base if they'd dropped the professional licenses by roughly 1/10 and gotten a bigger user base.

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

#287

Post by Shikadi »

rpdillon wrote: post #222
Shikadi wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open source values" is just a covert way of saying "RMS values"

I don't think that's correct. Open Source as a term was created in reaction to Free Software, which is RMS's thing. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

It wasn't created as a reaction to free software, it was created as a way to differentiate from free software, starting with Netscape navigator. But there's the open source initiative, which somehow I wasn't aware of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative

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

#288

Post by otterley »

nathias wrote: post #284
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…

If you include other succesfull open source projects, like Blender, the pattern is no longer there ...

A lot of “rules” are general rules, many of which have exceptions. These are not laws of the universe.

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

#289

Post by otterley »

brudgers wrote: post #119
sjansen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've made the mistake of expressing an unpopular opinion, so you're getting down voted. I strongly dislike proprietary software, but you raise valid concerns that should be considered instead of being downvoted into silence. (edit: at the time I wrote this comment, the parent appeared to be headed for oblivion, happily that appears to have improved) I don't know that open sourcing Java killed Sun. More likely it wa…

Netscape exited for ten billion dollars. It didn’t need saving because it was by any reasonable measure a grand slam home run. The exit was so lucrative that Andreesen is the first name in Andreesen Horowitz. This doesn’t make a good argument that Microsoft is evil, so Silicon Valley created a mythology in which Netscape failed. Netscape did not bet on open source. It didn’t fail. And the browser has a de facto monop…

A successful public fundraising round is an indicia of success for prior investors. It is not an indicia of long-term success for a company as a going concern in terms of profits.

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

#290

Post by otterley »

somenewaccount1 wrote: post #246
alphachloride wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think he is lacking integrity as it stands?

Because he makes hundreds of false statements disparaging open source - and it's contributors - throughout the whole article.

Can you identify some of them?
Post reply on HN