Open Source 'Sage' Takes Aim at High End Math Software 360
coondoggie writes "A new open source mathematics program is looking to push aside commercial software commonly used in mathematics education, in large government laboratories and in math-intensive research. The program's backers say the software, called Sage, can do anything from mapping a 12-dimensional object to calculating rainfall patterns under global warming."
Added benefit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Added benefit (Score:4, Informative)
It being a different type of app is no help: remember Pheonix/Firebird?
Re:Added benefit (Score:5, Informative)
Accounting software [sagesoftware.com]
Browser plugin [mozdev.org]
If any of these present a real problem, we've discussed the name Sage Math -- but there's no reason to change yet.
mod parent up (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Added benefit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Added benefit (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft Excel [wikipedia.org] comes to mind.
MS settled the trademark infringement lawsuit by agreeing to always refer to it as "Microsoft Excel".
Eventually, MS just bought the original trademark owner, thus ending the issue completely.
Re:Added benefit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Added benefit (Score:4, Informative)
That said, I think they should be left alone regarding the name. One is unlikely to accidentally purchase several hundred pounds worth of accounting software when you actually meant to download a free mathematical application. Or vice versa. Hence, the trademarks shouldn't be infringed. That said, no doubt it will take many lawyers and many $$ to establish it.
Re:Added benefit (Score:5, Informative)
(I'm not the same AC who posted the original.)
Re:Added benefit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Added benefit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Added benefit (Score:5, Informative)
The current packaging of Sage was the most technically efficient way to
accomplish the goals of the Sage project quickly: (1) create a distribution
of math software that builds from scratch on all modern OS X and Linux
installs, (2) create a new library of functionality that ties it all
together and more, and (3) create interfaces to most existing mathematical
software. Creating
to do: see http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE [sagemath.org]
> At first glance it looks like SAGE is millions of lines of source code.
> On closer inspection I find that SAGE is really just several dozen open
> source mathematics packages bundled together in a tarball with the SAGE
> name slapped on it.
Sage is not "just that". It is nearly 70 packages, which took many people
a huge amount of time to get to all build together correctly -- and in many
cases (e.g., linbox, genus2reduction, mpfi, pyrex/cython, Singular, etc.)
Sage developers fixed significant bugs in those packages or made major
contributions; in some cases taking them from being nearly-orphaned research
only systems to serious projects. And Sage is also a huge amount
of new code.
> On even closer inspection I find that there is actually
> SAGE code that appears very worthwhile, additional functionality is provided,
> a consistent interface, etc. However, I'm not going to use it seriously
> because I can't 'apt-get install sage-math'.
That will come later when people who want to apt-get Sage actually put in
the work to make it happen. This is of course happening now and I strongly
support it. I just don't have the time to do it myself.
> SAGE wants me to download
> and install more than 200MB of stuff that isn't going to be handled by
> my OS package management, and it duplicates many of the components I
> already have installed that are handled by my OS package management.
In fact, because SAGE builds completely self contained it will not
conflict with or cause any headaches with anything you have installed.
> Don't make me use your own forked and patched versions of Pari or GAP.
I am certainly not making you use anything.
> I can 'apt-get install pari-gp gap' today(and I already have). I'm
> not going to install your alternative versions and deal with any
> inconsistancies between them. I'm not throwing out the ease of use that
> OS level package management provides to get SAGE. I know many other
> people who aren't going to do it either.
Look, there is nothing whatever about the Sage project or me that is
against mainstream packaging. It's just that Sage is a volunteer project
for which most developers are naturally mathematicians. We simply don't
have the time to maintain Debianizing dozens of packages. Arrogance has
nothing to do with it. I very much hope http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE [sagemath.org]
takes off.
-- William (a Sage developer)
12 dimensions... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:12 dimensions... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:12 dimensions... (Score:2, Funny)
Go straight to the source (Score:4, Informative)
http://sagemath.org/ [sagemath.org]
Re:Go straight to the source (Score:3, Informative)
Mirror links (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sagemath.org [sagemath.org]
http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage [washington.edu]
http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/sage [harvard.edu]
http://www.opensourcemath.org/sage/ [opensourcemath.org]
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/sage [cecm.sfu.ca]
http://sage.apcocoa.org [apcocoa.org]
http://echidna.maths.usyd.edu.au/sage [usyd.edu.au]
http://sage.scipy.org/sage [scipy.org]
Re:Mirror links (Score:2)
Re:Go straight to the source (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Go straight to the source (Score:2)
Questions from evil mastermind (Score:5, Funny)
I was wondering if the license of this software will allow me to achieve my goals without giving up my principles and secrets?
Re:Questions from evil mastermind (Score:5, Funny)
I was wondering if the license of this software will allow me to achieve my goals without giving up my principles and secrets?
Regrettably in this release, SAGE is somewhat limited and would not meet your goals. Due to some unforeseen limitations, it can only run in Baby Mulching Machines at the moment. However, I believe the next release has worked out these little kinks.
Re:Questions from evil mastermind (Score:5, Funny)
Mulching is one of the simplest and most beneficial things you can do for your home garden. As mulches slowly decompose, they provide organic matter which helps keep the soil loose. This improves root growth, increases the infiltration of water, and also improves the water-holding capacity of the soil.
As any parent can tell you, babies are an excellent source of organic material.
Very Nice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very Nice (Score:5, Informative)
SAS (Score:4, Informative)
What about other math software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about other math software? (Score:4, Informative)
Sage, on the other hand, focuses on gluing together other packages and uses Python. That means that Sage gets a lot of functionality out of the box that you don't easily get in those other packages. For example, Sage uses Twisted for its web service, Pyrex for native code compilation, Numpy for numerical computations, Vtk for 3D visualization, etc.
Also, Sage can invoke packages like Maxima, Axiom, and Yacas and glue them together with each other and other packages.
It includes them (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about other math software? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about other math software? (Score:5, Informative)
sage: f = x^2 + x
sage: df = diff(f, x); df
2*x + 1
sage: a = maple(df).integrate(x); a
x^2+x
sage: a+2
x^2+x+2
--Mike
Re:What about other math software? (Score:2)
Pretty Graphs (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty enough? (Score:2, Informative)
Continuum (Score:5, Funny)
Not new (Score:2, Informative)
What SAGE cannot do is.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not new (Score:2)
Re:Not new (Score:3, Informative)
FLOSS misses the point again (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just like GIMP trying to take on Photoshop. When you're a kid, Adobe prices seem so off-putting that you can't see why people wouldn't flock to the free alternative. When you're doing a real job involving print work, you simply don't think twice about paying Adobe for the required feature set, intuitive UI and better workflow.
So, kids will carry on pirating Adobe or paying a much reduced student price, then paying for it when they go into the real world; and the same goes for Maple, Matlab, Mathematica, or whatever.
Oh, yeah, the whole "open source" thing. Excepting core functionality, some of Mathematica and the majority of Maple is provided in source form. You can whine about needing peer review of implementation at all levels, but how many of you have inspected your CPU's microcode or circuit diagrams? At some point the line is drawn, and you combine a trust in the reputation of your vendor with the fact that usually you're prototyping and modelling. Things will be re-implemented and tested in many ways before your "final product" is out of the door (whether that's theoretical physics or an aeroplane).
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:5, Informative)
These were all reasons that led William Stein to start up Sage.
--Mike ( a Sage developer )
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:3, Insightful)
That comment would indicate that you do not know how to program in a functional programming language like Lisp and APL. When ever I see or hear a comment like that and look at the code the person has written, the person has tried to use a functional language as if it was an imperative language.
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:5, Interesting)
--Mike
Maxima vs Mathematica (Score:5, Interesting)
Free software isn't about price -- it is about freedom. One of the research groups at my university cannot use Mathematica since a few weeks because the license expired, and neither renewing the license nor contacting tech support has so far brought a solution.
Another no-go is that Mathematica 6 notebooks are not compatible with Mathematica 5 notebooks. Also, the unwillingness of Wolfram to timely fix bugs leading to wrong results is unacceptable. I could go on ranting like this, but recently I have completely switched to Maxima [osreviews.net] and have not regretted it.
Re:Maxima vs Mathematica (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maxima vs Mathematica (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to be unfair to the companies I've enquired about this problem by naming them, but I'm often quoted that I would qualify for an academic license which expires within the software after 1 year with no upgrade options for $1000. After a work day I don't have much "time" to learn the software at home and $1000 is steep for the amount of time I would use it. The problem, simply, is that my program at college did not teach me adequately how to use a given software package or I was not taught it but know it is used in the field. If I'm to have several years experience with software to qualify for a job, I'd at least like to say that I know how to use it, but not in the workplace. Is there no solution in this case? I know I am not alone as my friends and colleagues would love to take on some computer software learning time.
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:2)
If you want to trust vendors who won't let you look for yourself how things work, then fine; it's up to you, but don't go claiming it's the same for everyone because it ain't.
Also, the tactics employed by adobe and others, where they let people initially have stuff for free until they are used to it and want to continue using it, and then suddenly make them pay, is very similar to the business model used by some kinds of drug dealers.
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:2)
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, the whole "open source" thing. Excepting core functionality, some of Mathematica and the majority of Maple is provided in source form.
For now. But since the program is closed source and very expensive, what happens 30 years from now when Wolfram won't give you the version the original result of interest was created on and it's illegal to get it anywhere else? Oh, and the formatting options changed over 30 years so the results look different and you can't tell easily if they're still the same? Not that this is guaranteed to happen, but it might. Open source is a guarantee, and when you're doing research of this sort that guarantee is very good to have.
You can whine about needing peer review of implementation at all levels, but how many of you have inspected your CPU's microcode or circuit diagrams?
A very good point, but the idea is that (in theory) you could if you have to. Indeed, my own interests with Axiom have lead me in those directions - I have downloaded the MIT CADR machine circuit diagrams and have acquired a couple books on Forth (which has the virtue of being "easily" bootstrapped from machine instructions). I'm also aware of things like OpenSPARC [opensparc.net] and OpenCores [opencores.org]. The point being not that I will ever be good enough at understanding them to verify them other than experimentally (unit testing, etc) I COULD do it in principle because it is available. I would very much like to seen a machine built entirely on open hardware even if it would be slower, but commercial realities may make that difficult.
Anyway, the point is you strive to be as open as possible. Even if hardware today isn't verified, someday open code could be ported to a verified open platform. The principle is worthwhile even if the implementation of it isn't perfect from the beginning.
At some point the line is drawn, and you combine a trust in the reputation of your vendor with the fact that usually you're prototyping and modelling.
Indeed that is what must (practically) be done now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to make sure that things remain open - it's a foundational principle of science that things be reproducible and openness facilitates that. Perfection is not currently possible, but that doesn't mean we give up and don't do what we can.
It's your who is missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, mathematics and other research rely more and more on computer algebra systems. Up to the point of including CAS code into proofs of theorems and other research paper. However the point of mathematical proof is that anyone with enough knowledge can follow it and verify it step by step. If commercial closed source software is part of mathematical proof, proof is becoming essentially unverifiable. Mathematical theorem become hostage of software owner. That is a step toward complete privatization of science.
On of the ugliest incident happens then owner of your favorite Mathematica Steven Wolfram claimed ownership of proof of CA rule 110 universalty [wikipedia.org] and obtained a court order preventing researcer from the publishing the proof in the conference proceedings. To publish it as the Mathematica code in his books.
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:2)
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:3, Insightful)
So even if professionally one can spend a grand for the software of the profession of choice, personal computing is much more than that, and i hope FLOSS keeps "missing the point" like it did till now.
About open source having to stop at a certain threshold because you can't inspect microcode and circuits, that's true. But it's also true that malicious actions then must be confined to microcode and circuits to stay undetectable. You have a harder time inserting malware and stuff because that level would have to reconstruct activity at higher levels and act accordingly. Say the random number generator hardware can't be trusted. If you have an OSS stack on top of it you can do something about that, if your whole stack is closed you are toast.
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:2)
Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:3, Informative)
FINALLY! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FINALLY! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FINALLY! (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. Both are important factors. Being able to view all the source is important, but so is having the software available to the 80% of the planet that cannot currently afford it. This could lead to huge advances simply because it opens areas of research to thousands of brilliant mathematicians who make less in a year than the cost of Mathematica.
Re:FINALLY! (Score:2)
Debian packages (Score:2)
VisIT (Score:2)
SAGE is an interesting project (Score:5, Insightful)
This is undeniably a practical approach that will benefit many research teams, and I am rooting for its success. My main concern with it is that by using a wide array of libraries/programs to cover broad functionality, it will become difficult to integrate results from one system into the computations of another. Different systems may make different default assumptions (sometimes very subtle ones) that other systems will not be aware of. Efforts like OPENMATH (http://www.openmath.org) that have attempted to define a protocol for exchange of mathematical information between systems have run into this before.
Unfortunately, any proper solution to that problem is likely to be even more work than re-implementing algorithms inside a single environment. A framework for a CAS that could handle such broad scope is a problem (Axiom probably comes the closest right now) so for problems that don't hit the more difficult situations SAGE will be very useful indeed, but it is something to bear in mind.
In the very long term, we need to integrate formal proof software concepts (ISABELLE, ACL2, COQ, etc.) with computer algebra systems in order to be able to trace any calculation back to its axiomatic roots at need - or, put another way, have the system be able to provide upon request correctness proofs of a result. There is a fair bit of literature on that and related topics, but it cannot be denied that the problem is an awesome one. In the meantime, SAGE is a very promising short term (practical) solution to real world problems.
SAGE's developers are also supporters of the idea of open source software in general, which is probably the most important aspect of the whole discussion: http://www.ams.org/notices/200710/tx071001279p.pdf [ams.org]
It may be argued that computers are not really an appropriate tool when truly "correct" mathematics must be relied upon. My response to that is that as problems of interest become ever more complex, limitations both of the human mind and the human life span will ultimately limit the problems we can solve unaided. The task for us now is to create a system we CAN trust to solve problems correctly, because someday we will have to trust it to solve problems we cannot handle. Some researchers would probably have a philosophical objection to that and define any problem human beings cannot solve and verify themselves as a problem where we will always be uncertain if it is really solved. The philosophical questions involved are fascinating for people who like that sort of thing. My take on it is such a system would be useful and is worth looking into.
SAGE is more pragmatic in its orientation, but that means for many (most?) people it is a project to watch and probably a product to use. Here's hoping they can build increased momentum!
Re:SAGE is an interesting project (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a mathematical proof verification language, Metamath [wikipedia.org], whose rigor and/or correctness (meaning freedom from bugs) are probably near the top, if only because (1) the proof language is trivially simple and (2) as a result half a dozen independently written proof verifiers have been coded, in C, Haskell, Python (300 lines of code), Java, Lisp, and Lua, so the likelihood they all have the same bug is pretty small. It stands in contrast to some other proof verifiers or theorem provers that embed complex internal algorithms and tend to be very large programs that would be hard to formally verify for correctness - and in some cases are closed source (like Mizar [wikipedia.org], which BTW probably has the largest body of mathematical knowledge developed for it).
A problem with Metamath is that it is very labor-intensive to develop proofs. The proof of 2 + 2 = 4 [metamath.org] has 23,000 steps from ZF set theory axioms, and the computation of cosine of 2 [metamath.org] to one decimal place has some 75,000 steps that take several seconds for the verifier to verify. All of these steps were entered by hand (although once a collection of theorems are developed they can be reused, so proofs become easier as a body of knowledge is developed). All of these steps are absolutely, rigorously correct - assuming that at least one of the independent verifiers has no bugs. Unlike a 75,000 line computer program, there is no such thing a a bug in the proof - a proof is either right or wrong (i.e. not a proof).
good idea (Score:2)
This should be used in all free software, from Firefox to KDE and from bc to cp. The user should be able to have a more direct access to source code to encourage more people study it and hack it. If Firefox users could move their mouse over a button and right-click and select "view source" to see the actual source code generating the button or the called methods, perhaps more people would feel more inclined to contribute to free software.
Re:good idea (Score:2)
Maple source is viewable (Score:2)
There are some packages that are called by Maple that are closed source. For example, Maple calls the NAG Numerical Libraries [wikipedia.org] for a substantial amount of its numeric computations; the NAG routines are closed source, but they are widely agreed to be the best on the planet, and Maple decided to rely on them.
Sage is interesting, but its functionality is very limited. In the (very?) long term, though, Sage might well pose a challenge to Maple and Mathematica. But in the meantime, I expect to continue to use Maple.
Around what? (Score:2)
The Sage Notebook (Score:2, Interesting)
This is one area which could use some help from a web developers familiar with Python and AJAX -- a background in math is not needed at all. Eventually, we'd like to split off the interface into its own project since it pretty useful on its own.
--Mike
To be completely honest (Score:2)
Re:To be completely honest (Score:2)
Matlab (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, since then, we've renewed our licences every year, and we've been looking for an alternative. We even tried to migrate the whole lab to Scilab [scilab.org] but that didn't work out (mostly because of the limited capabilities of Scilab in scientific plotting and GUIs). Some of us use Python + Matplotlib (I'm a big fan), some (often the same people) use Octave. Although we've converted some individuals, we weren't able to find a software which could be used by everyone in the lab as a substitute to Matlab. This is frustrating, as the vast majority of people here use only a fraction of the capabilities of Matlab.
I for one, would be really happy if we had something to replace Matlab, be it Sage or whatever else...
Can I focus on my work? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I tried out Numpy/SciPy about a year ago and again about an hour ago after I saw this article. I was hoping Sage would provide an "intersection" of sorts for Numpy/SciPy/VTK/R/Octave/etc. At least, that was my major issue about a year ago. There was so much disconnect I spent more time reading documentation and Googling than anything else. Alas, today was the same thing all over again.
One of the most common things I do in Matlab is solve Ax=b. So I made my 'A' matrix (3x3), my 'b' vector (3x1) and tried a "linalg.solve(A,b)". No dice. I got 2 blocks of Python error messages (yes, I checked my matrix dimensions and made sure I was using Matrix and not an array). The "final" error was something about "an undefined shape attribute in my b vector". Uh... yeah. I played with it for about an hour or so and then deleted it.
What has been done so far has promise, I think. But it needs to mature a lot more. In its present state I was left slightly annoyed with trying unsuccessfully to do something as simple as least squares regression.
Again, this problem goes to the heart of the issue. I have to be able to focus on my work. Matlab has issues for sure. But when I dont know how to do something in Matlab, or I hit a snag, 90% of the time Im "back to work" in ~5-10 minutes max. I'll check it out again in a year or so. Until then, Im using Matlab. Sorry.
Re:Can I focus on my work? (Score:4, Informative)
sage: A = random_matrix(ZZ, 3)
sage: A
[ 1 3 -1]
[-2 2 4]
[ 2 -1 -1]
sage: b = vector([3,2,1])
sage: b
(3, 2, 1)
sage: x = A \ b
sage: x
(14/11, 9/11, 8/11)
sage: A*x
(3, 2, 1)
--Mike
Re:This makes me think..... (Score:2)
Isn't it more a philosophical issue than a mathematics issue?
I think the difference may be execution vs. underlying operation. I'd say that software is an algorithm, but those that don't program it wouldn't know that.
Re:This makes me think..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This makes me think..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always disliked that argument (Score:2)
Always sounded to me like saying that all works of literature are, are arrangements of words. And all words are public domain. The dictionary is prior art. So books shouldn't be copyrighted.
Algorithms IMHO are simply the words and sentences you use to make software, which is akin to a work of literature. At least it seems that way to me, anyways.
If we're going to beat software patents, it just seems like we should drop the algorithms argument because it seems a little flimsy.
Re:I've always disliked that argument (Score:2)
Re:I've always disliked that argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this flimsy? It doesn't follow. If algorithms are like books (which the GP argues), algorithms should fall under copyright (which they do). If this argument is flimsy for software patents, what does this imply for book patents?
There's a world of difference between copyright and patents, and the OP is transferring arguments from one domain to another. If books were patentable, this would make sense. Now it's weird.
Re:I've always disliked that argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:2, Insightful)
GIMP's no good for commercial artwork (Pantone swatches and CYMYK and whatnot)
I can't comment on Inkscape.
They're more "challenged" than a challenge to commercial programs.
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite often, an interface that is intuitive for a beginner is an untold frustration to an expert. It might even be argued that an interface that is too focused on beginners will tend to keep them beginners rather than rewarding increased learning.
I can't say from personal experience though - I've only done a couple simple models in Blender using very crude means. I found it acceptable, but clearly something you needed to spend time with to get the hang of. That's inherent in complex tasks.
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite often, an interface that is intuitive for a beginner is an untold frustration to an expert. It might even be argued that an interface that is too focused on beginners will tend to keep them beginners rather than rewarding increased learning.
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of whether someone will stick around long enough to learn the software is less one of usability than it is one of marketability. I make no statement about the relative importance of usability and marketability.
But what is the goal of the marketing? (Score:3, Insightful)
But what is the goal of the marketing? To increase the consumption of bandwidth, or to put free software into actual use outside of an evaluation scenario? If a user downloads Blender, says "fuck it" after going through the first tutorial, and then goes and pirates something, what has anyone accomplished?
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:4, Interesting)
Blender is a UI for advanced users. It has very poor learnability, but I've heard it is a very good UI once you are used to it. I haven't seen any usability studies though, so it is just hearsay.
I have used GIMP for commercial work for years and it has been the best tool on the market for certain uses, especially large automated batch jobs that are beyond Graphics Converter. More recently, Pixelmator may have taken the title away from them, but to call GIMP "no good" in a commercial environment is just wrong. It is used a lot in certain segments, although it can't compete with Photoshop for one off photo touch-ups and that sort of thing.
Inkscape is pretty decent and a reasonable Illustrator replacement for many projects. The main drawbacks I have with it is for Visio type work it is not well suited, and support on the Mac (where realistically most pro graphic artists work) is very weak.
I disagree. Most of them are focused on different parts of the market than commercial competitors, but all of this software is probably the best for some uses.
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Informative)
With all due respect, I've done CMYK separation in GIMP. No, it doesn't come with the default install, but it is too obvious an extension not to float around out there as a free download.
As far as I recall, all I did was google "gimp cmyk" or some such. Downloaded some gizmo that had to be placed into some directory. Had to download some profiles from Adobe or something. And then the rest "just worked". Total investment maybe 30 minutes of time.
Now when was the last time you tried to do something that wasn't built-in with a commercial piece of software and the fix was as easy as that?
As far as I can tell, that's where the value of F/OSS really lies. It's not the "price" (GIMP is only 'free' if your time is worthless) but the enormous flexibility that arises from letting anybody who cares modify (i.e. improve upon) the tool you're using.
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Informative)
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:4, Informative)
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:4, Informative)
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, the requirements for correctness are extreme. But I think open-source people could organize very good code reviews and tests. Properly organized, in the long run I think the risk of metric/imperial confusions, premature triggerings and the like would be much smaller with a FOSS approach.
A link for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Nasa open source [nasa.gov]
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Funny)
Houston, we got a problem here
"What is it Orion-3?"
We're trying to decelerate for lunar orbital insertion but when we try to fire the thrusters, a little box pops up that says "Null pointer dereference at 0x00045fe3342a"
"Wait, I'll check Sourceforge"
...
"Nope, looks like that's a new one. I submitted it through Bugzilla and changed the priority to '9'..."
Re:another one bites the dust (Score:3, Interesting)
That market is custom database design: it's where your company pays $10,000 per license of some "cutting-edge" VB6.0 front-end to a MS Access database file because it has been completely customized to their business model. They are rampant with bugs, bag programming procedures, and hidden [usually annual] costs.
Doesn't look like it's going anywhere either, until corporate purchasing mindsets evolve from "price = value".
Commercial vs Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Theoretically no, but in reality probably yes.
There are some applications that are simply very difficult to make work in an open source or free software model. CAD software comes to mind immediately. Creating a CAD system is highly specialized, requires serious math skillz, and the end application is large and complicated (on par with operating systems or top tier database software) so a good team is required. There also are likely to be patent issues to work around as well. From a user's perspective changing CAD systems has VERY VERY high switching costs, require a LOT of training, and the user bases are quite small. Sure there are a few free/open-source CAD packages out there but they are toys compared with CATIA or ProEngineer or even AutoCAD. Don't get me wrong, lots of firms would love to not have to spend huge $ on an expensive 3D modeling package like CATIA. It costs a bloody fortune. But there just aren't enough programmers out there with the right skills and the itch to create a CAD package that will replace the commercial stuff any time soon.
Games seem to be another area where free software struggles to challenge commercial offerings. High development costs, small group of available programmers, requires artistic/creative skills not widely possessed by programmers, and other reasons besides.
Basically, the more specialized the software or the more artistic content required, the more difficult it seems to be to develop under a free model. Not impossible mind you, just more difficult; sometimes to the point where it is not practical even if it is theoretically possible.
Re:Evidently these "experts" (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget Octave (Score:2)
Re:User interface and documentation (Score:3, Interesting)
The success of Sage with research mathematicians may be determined by how
powerful Sage is, but you're right -- the success for 99% of users won't be
determined by that.
> As others have observed, it is largely a mashup of existing stuff.
> Its success will be determined by how easy it is to use. If someone
> can put together some decent documentation
We have many people in the development team who are really very interested
in writing good documentation (and who write published mathematics books as
part of our jobs). For example, the author of "Adventures in Group Theory:
Rubik's Cube, Merlin's Machine, and Other Mathematical Toys" is
one of the main Sage developers (he's coming out with a new version of the
book that uses Sage soon).
> and a semi-intuitive UI, it will take off.
From the start we've had many undergraduates with a software engineering
background involved in the project and they have helped immensely with
the browser-based GUI (which one can use locally -- no need to be online!).
Also, us "professional mathematicians" -- even the ones that use mainly FOSS --
really do greatly value having a nice GUI. You might be able to try
out the GUI right now here:
https://sage.math.washington.edu:8101/ [washington.edu]
that is, if it hasn't been slashdotted into oblivion already!
-- Willam