> 2. No real discussion of the costs of the proprietary systems are > given. For me, this is really the primary issue. > If it was possible to buy a full (non-student) copy of matlab or > mathematica for $100 and have freedom to use it on whatever computer I > wanted, however I wanted, I might not necessarily feel so strongly > about open source. I don't mind paying for closed source software if > the cost is reasonable.
This is a good point, although I doubt if I would easily spend $100 if there are good open source alternatives. :-) But I think that cost is an important issue. And I have several considerations regarding cost. 1. I prefer a free alternative because I tend to think that tomorrow if I am not employed at a university or another big institution, would I be able to continue my work? So I would not like to become dependent on something like Mathematica or Maple even if my university is buying all that for now. 2. As far as possible, I would prefer to spend my money on better hardware. 3. In general proprietary software, research journals ... are beyond the budget of many universities in poorer countries. So they often pirate everything that they need, and really there should not be a need to pirate knowledge. Open source eliminates piracy. Bhalchandra Thatte Mathematics and Computer Science University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand > But it is the fact that as a non-student it would cost thousands of > dollars, and I would be restricted to a single computer, etc that > makes me feel strongly about free math software. The fact that it is > closed would not be as troublesome to me if it was less restrictive > financially and legally. > > 3. I think that the mathematica quote is aimed at people using > mathematica to do things mathematica already does well. Most people > using mathematica, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, probably > don't need to understand how it calculates bessel functions or > computes integrals to get their work done and knowing these things > probably wouldn't help them. Knowing how it works is really only > necessary if you need to extend it beyond its current capabilities. I > think this is the real point to me, it is important for software to be > open not so you understand how it does what it does, but so you > understand how to make it do things it doesn't do yet. This is > actually talked about in the paper, but I think there is more emphasis > on wanting open source software due to skepticism of correct results, > than on ability to extend. Of course we are curious people so we want > to know how things work as well even if we don't need to. In fact > often we just want to know that we could find out how somethign > worked. > > As an analogy, how many people using linux actually read the source > code. I for one feel good knowing that I could look at the source code > and I think most people feel good knowing they could look at the > source. > The only kernel code I have looked at was a wifi driver that I was > having trouble getting to work, and if that had worked perfectly I > probably would > have never looked at the source. In other words, I want to know that I > could look at the source, but unless it doesn't do something I want it > to do or something is not working, I probably don't need to even if I > want to. > > Just my thoughts. > > Josh > > On Aug 5, 11:37 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 2007, at 01:00 , Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 2007, at 5:58 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > >> On 8/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Shoot, this came in as I sent that last message. I have much less > > >>> to say about > > >>> this version; it's very strong. Part of me thinks that the > > >>> mathematica quote > > >>> is too direct an attack... but it's from the horse's mouth, and I > > >>> think that the > > >>> mathematical community needs to know. > > > >> It is indeed *their* statement on the matter and it is what they > > >> strongly believe > > >> to be true. It is critical to my argument that the reader be > > >> convinced that > > >> current closed mathematical software is nothing like the situation > > >> with math papers -- with > > >> closed math software you can't just pay $25 and read the source (like > > >> you can with > > >> expensive journal articles. No journal would *ever* dare make a > > >> statement > > >> like Mathematica does about the proofs of the theorems they > > >> publish. Many > > >> mathematicians probably don't know this or believe it about > > >> mathematical software. > > >> It is very important that they realize the truth before it is too > > >> late. > > > > Though we all understand the principle, I don't think many people > > > will (instantly) see the connection between software and proofs. I > > > don't want to be to aggressive, but I think we need to state that > > > point directly. I like how you worded it in this email--perhaps right > > > after the quote something like. > > > > No journal would *ever* dare make a statement like Mathematica does > > > about the proofs of the theorems they publish, yet (here/increasingly > > > commenly) the software and algorithms used are an essential part of > > > (Jane's/the) proof. > > > I really like your argument here. I think it is precisely the issue > > when discussing the use of closed source/proprietary software in > > mathematics: "a theorem without proof is as useful as software > > without code". Perhaps remove 'dare' :-} > > > Justin > > > -- > > Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-at-Large > > () The ASCII Ribbon Campaign > > /\ Help Cure HTML Email --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
