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

91–100 of 316 posts

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

#91

Post by mountainriver »

candiddevmike wrote: post #68
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #9

This is just the usual "proprietary software is higher quality, we swear". Accurately voicing my thoughts on this would probably go against the HN guidelines, so I'll just let this sentence from the article speak for itself: >But our vision is a grand one—unify all of computation into a single coherent language, and for that, the FOSS development model is not well suited. Well, good luck with that.

I don't think they're wrong. Open source does not work with product management. There will always be friction with what is on the roadmap vs what the community wants to add. Additionally, if Wolfram wants to monetize it somehow, they have to own supporting it--including the contributions that they don't necessarily want. If they anger the community, then the community forks the project and Wolfram loses complete cont…

Huh? Open source absolutely works with product management, their are tons of companies doing this today. OSS is a great way to market and up sell to SaaS

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

#92

Post by fredgrott »

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…

ahem it obviously was a business service model success as Oracle bought ti for exactly that reason!

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

vlovich123 wrote: post #86
chubot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by mountainriver »

jayd16 wrote: post #73
chubot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's fine. The bullets should just read "we can't figure out a FOSS business model" instead of calling it a code quality problem.

Exactly I’ve been building OSS for companies for a long time now, it’s an incredibly viable business model as shown by the boatload of products that do it today

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

#96

Post by antoineMoPa »

Claim number 9 might be right for the specific listed cases but it certainly isn't true for all domains. In the browser world, open source has clearly produced better results (chrome, firefox, webkit) than the closed source alternatives (IE before chromuim Edge).

Also, this post is an insult to big projects such as Blender, which have been a terrain for innovation and experimentation for years. Blender is also is an example of long term effort and unified design.

In the software library world, open source clearly wins in terms of market adoption and innovation. If the author has a car, it probably runs linux, sqlite, and many other open source components.

In AI research, the common set of tools used by the community is open source (Tensorflow, Python, etc.)

In conclusion, interesting perspective, but it does not match mine at all.

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

#98

Post by knorker »

I think the question needs to be a bit more well formed for the answer written.

Does he mean "why doesn't Wolfram opensource all its stuff", or "why not opensource and also take contributions from a community", or "why is it that Wolfram is finding itself in a situation where there is no viable opensource competitor", or something else?

I believe there are some Google opensource projects where the source is open (and even a libre license), but it's still presented as-is, with no real way for anyone outside Google to contribute.

There are other projects where there's a clear corporate owner, but outside patches are accepted.

It's not that I disagree with this post, but it's very unclear what this person means by "open source".

So in the most scathing of all critiques, I would summarize this post as "not even wrong".

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

#99

Post by fartcannon »

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…

Java was killed by Microsoft using their famous Embrace, Extend And Extinguish method. It's on the wikipedia page as an example of the EEE method.

The fact that Java remains at all today is a testament to the power of open sourcing something.

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

#100

Post by mountainriver »

jasode wrote: post #41
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.

>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. All of your examples are subsidized by a parent corporate sponsor that makes billions from something else . Chrome can be "free as in beer" and Chromium source can be "free as in libre" because Google/Alphabet make billi…

There are a bunch of smaller companies that open source a community edition and upsell to SaaS. Confluent and elasticsearch are the first that come to mind
Post reply on HN