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

311–316 of 316 posts

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

#311

Post by chrisseaton »

dragonwriter wrote: post #308
chrisseaton wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 You can see the term gaining popularity prior to 3 Feb 1998, and there are references to for example BSD being 'open source' as far back as 1990. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source%2C... Via https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html .

> You can see the term gaining popularity prior to 3 Feb 1998 “Open source” has older non-software uses, most notably in the intelligence context, where it picks up sharply in the 1980s: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source+in...

Did you look at all the references in that article? They aren’t about the intelligence term.

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

#312

Post by chrisseaton »

rpdillon wrote: post #307
chrisseaton wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 You can see the term gaining popularity prior to 3 Feb 1998, and there are references to for example BSD being 'open source' as far back as 1990. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source%2C... Via https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html .

BSD fits the modern open source definition. Martin's article pleads with readers not to be pedantic when using the term, but offers no alternative definition, beyond 'let people use it when they can read source code'. Perhaps that's the proposed usage you and Martin prefer? If I'm understanding your position correctly, perhaps you would agree that Ocarina of Time has now been released as open source? https://arstechn…

> offers no alternative definition

If the OSI picked a term that wasn't simply descriptive they could trademark it, then they could enforce their definition and there would be no ambiguity. That would be better for everyone.

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

#313

Post by Shikadi »

rpdillon wrote: post #298
Shikadi wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> It wasn't created as a reaction to free software, it was created as a way to differentiate from free software I wanted to correct your statement without getting into an argument. I view an attempt to differentiate as a type of reaction.

If I'm being pedantic saying that it was a reaction to Netscape releasing under a license that didn't jive with the FSF, then your initial comment was also pedantic :P

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

#314

Post by rpdillon »

chrisseaton wrote: post #312
rpdillon wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BSD fits the modern open source definition. Martin's article pleads with readers not to be pedantic when using the term, but offers no alternative definition, beyond 'let people use it when they can read source code'. Perhaps that's the proposed usage you and Martin prefer? If I'm understanding your position correctly, perhaps you would agree that Ocarina of Time has now been released as open source? https://arstechn…

> offers no alternative definition If the OSI picked a term that wasn't simply descriptive they could trademark it, then they could enforce their definition and there would be no ambiguity. That would be better for everyone.

Without delving into how distinctive a mark has to be, that ship has sailed: I see no path to changing the term now.

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

#315

Post by rg111 »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #295
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…

MATLAB has the open source equivalentS Octave (EDIT : and SciLab !) though..?

They didn't catch on.

I guess Octave's early adopters were the people who already used MATLAB or needed to use it.

Indian students did not, and still do not fit into either category.

Very few do the ML course on Coursera, and use Octave.

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

#316

Post by BlueTemplar »

rg111 wrote: post #315
BlueTemplar wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MATLAB has the open source equivalentS Octave (EDIT : and SciLab !) though..?

They didn't catch on. I guess Octave's early adopters were the people who already used MATLAB or needed to use it. Indian students did not, and still do not fit into either category. Very few do the ML course on Coursera, and use Octave.

My own (non-Indian) experience is that teachers tend to have (use/d) Matlab, but then teach Octave / SciLab to students. (And it wasn't optional in none of the 4 courses I took that used it.)
Post reply on HN