Yo ! > Seems like some people forget that, you have to play the game in order to be successful.
On the other hand, some people think that they need to "play some kind of game". Who is the craziest ? > The game could broadly be described as: navigating the framework of society. That framework whether you like it or not, is and likely will continue to be composed largely of money. How does your view of "life, the universe and everything" where everything is composed largely of money explains things like free software being developped by free volunteers ? Unless you are willing to accept things like ideals and the humans that are fighting for them, it will leave a lot of things unexplained. Especially when we talk about Sage. > The game consists for everyone, as we all play it, and of anything really, buying milk at the grocery store, making a product successful/popular/accessible etc, there are boundaries and limits that as mentioned, are usually monetary in nature. Hopefully this makes sense so far lol. Your ill-intended attempt at making me accept your views just because I drink chocolate milk in the morning has failed. > One of the limits that Sage has encountered against so far, as William explicitly points out, is money. William probably only counts the money he spends himself. Count the money that states pay as the salary of Sage's developpers, and the picture becomes a bit different. > Back to the game side of things, all the benefits of SMC came and and continue to come at a cost, the servers and infrastructure cost money. That's easy to forget if you use SMC just as a black box sort of thing. But how else would you do this without cost? Make some sort of distributed Computer Algebra System or something? There is no way else, there will always be a cost, money, in trying to acheive Sage's Mission: Creating a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and Matlab. This thread was about how SMC is NOT Sage. You cannot come now and tell us that a free software like Sage needs money to pay for the SMC servers. On the other hand, if you accept that the two are different, it all becomes very natural: some company which sells an online service is being built, the money they need for their servers is currently being paid by the states in different forms, but they want to become a for-profit company. Thus they will have to earn money in some way, by selling stuff. That's the hard life of those who are willing to play the money game to achieve their ends, isn't it ? > William even explicitly mentions having to play the game in his blog post. If you don’t play the game, you lose. Just as an example, since it Magma gets brought up alot, as per Magma's Website: I take it as a proof that you can easily lose your soul when you look for money. The development of Sage may not go as fast as you want, but because of the way it is developped there is no risk of having to do what Magma does, i.e. deprive students of a tool just because it does not pay sufficiently. What could happen if SMC does not get enough money to pay for its servers ? Or just "does not bring enough money" ? Or just "could bring more money" ? That's for-profit companies. And nobody has any control over that except the head of the company, while in Sage there is some kind of fundamental democracy. > I have no idea what Magma's Mission is, and it doesnt matter, as im not comparing/contrasting them here, i just post that from their website to show people, detractors/haters of SMC that theres others in the game as well, trying to achieve whatever their goal is, but bound by same limits as sage, money. Many of the detractors/haters of SMC are also those who write Sage's code, and Sage's code is what -- accept it or not -- you sell with SMC. Officially all you sell is an online access and cool interface, but -- guess what.... If SMC exists, doesn't it mean that making Sage work on Windows, or improving its interface, or making it lighter/easier to install... Isn't all this going against SMC interests ?... Crazy, isn't it ? SMC's business is partly to compensate for Sage's faults with a for-profit company. But if those problems get addressed in Sage itself someday, it will probably hurt SMC a bit. Isn't it funny that some Sage defenders are not as interested as before in improving Sage itself, because Sage's losses are SMC's wins ? > Sage's Mission, its goal, is lofty, so if your a person that loves sage but hates all or just some of SMC, then your free to never use SMC and can just view it as playing the game. And I do not like that game. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
