11 ms·

Massive egos aside, it's hard to think of a successful software company that is more anti-freedom than Wolfram. While I think all software should respect users'

Massive egos aside, it's hard to think of a successful software company that is more anti-freedom than Wolfram. While I think all software should respect users' freedom, I recognize Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and Adobe have all made at least some meaningful contributions to free software.

exolymph 11y ago
This is flogging an old argument, but shouldn't users' choices be respected? They (we) don't seem to want freedom.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  Users want freedom to not be forced to use just free stuff, which is quite different. In a hypothetical country, one could be forced just to use proper GPL'd open source software. It wouldn't be a free country, even if the software itself was free.
  - thatcat 11y ago
    >it wouldn't be a free country Arguing that the freedom to restrictively licensing your software is more freedom than using GPL because it requires unrestricted future access is analogous to arguing that one should be tolerant of intolerance because that is the more tolerant action.
    - ralmidani 11y ago
      Exactly. Being pro-freedom does not mean allowing someone to take away the freedoms of others.
    - meric 11y ago
      Yes and being intolerant of intolerance is to become intolerant ourselves. I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant, but I tolerate them. It's analogous to saying people who murder murderers are murderers. Which is true.
      - JadeNB 11y ago
        > I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant Wait, seriously? So, if someone says "I don't want my kids ever to meet gay people", and I say "I don't want my kids ever to meet that guy", then you feel that I'm more in the wrong?
        meric 11y ago
        Yes. The first person is showing prejudice with an exclusionary attitude. The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it. The first person is prejudiced against gays based on his own experience growing up as well as his ignorance. The first person is being who they are. The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. (Of course if the second person is the gay person the first person is prejudiced against, then I would sympathise with them instead because they was the target of the first person's prejudice). And to think you're good when you're judging people with the same attitude to align with society's prevailing morals is distasteful to me. But I understand it and I will still let my kids meet you. It's human nature to follow the crowd.
        thatcat 11y ago
        >The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it The first person is ignorant, the second person is annoyed with ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as being in a minority group. There's no human right to remain ignorant.
        meric 11y ago
        If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them. Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
        11y ago
- ralmidani 11y ago
  The success of GNU/Linux, Postgres, Python, Django, Ruby, Rails, Node, Wordpress, jQuery, Bootstrap, Ember, etc. suggests otherwise.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    The success of Wolfram suggests otherwise, actually.
    - thatcat 11y ago
      what is the adoption rate of wolfram? Are there any use cases outside of demonstration/education where python wouldn't work better?
      - ethanbond 11y ago
        You're missing the point. If people demanded that Wolfram were open, then it would be either a) open or b) gone. The fact that it's neither of those would suggest that people don't want it open badly enough. Listing off projects that are open to show that people like open things is absolutely irrelevant.
        ralmidani 11y ago
        You missed my point. The argument made by exolymph was users do not want freedom. I listed projects which are among the best and most popular in their class, in no small part due to their respect of users' freedom.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Were those Wolfram's users? And did they reject his app in favor of the free alternatives? I think your point is missing the point. The market of people who just want a solution to work and be easy to use is much, much larger than the market that explicitly demands BSD or GPL-style freedom. Wolfram serves the former. Makes more money that way, too.
gertef 11y ago
This comment comes off as shrill, without an explanation of what "freedom" means here, and why it is important. Mathematica positions itself as a mathematical appliance, like a fridge or an oven or a car, none of which are generally running free software.
- ralmidani 11y ago
  Lots of appliances run on GNU/Linux, but prevent users from modifying the software via the bootloader.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > Mathematica positions itself as a mathematical appliance, like a fridge or an oven or a car, none of which are generally running free software. And that is why there are Linux gurus that will invest lots of time to get GNU/Linux run on their fridge - because there are people who will not accept this status quo.
- asddubs 11y ago
  the difference is that a fridge or a car is not a piece of software, and mathematica is.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  shrill: betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness. 5. marked by great intensity; keen. I'm pretty sure the entire FLOSS movement outlines what is meant by software 'freedom' in this context, and why it is important. And if you don't see the difference between a software "application" and consumer electrical appliances, I'd say you're being willfully ignorant.

exolymph 11y ago

This is flogging an old argument, but shouldn't users' choices be respected? They (we) don't seem to want freedom.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
Users want freedom to not be forced to use just free stuff, which is quite different. In a hypothetical country, one could be forced just to use proper GPL'd open source software. It wouldn't be a free country, even if the software itself was free.
- thatcat 11y ago
  >it wouldn't be a free country Arguing that the freedom to restrictively licensing your software is more freedom than using GPL because it requires unrestricted future access is analogous to arguing that one should be tolerant of intolerance because that is the more tolerant action.
  - ralmidani 11y ago
    Exactly. Being pro-freedom does not mean allowing someone to take away the freedoms of others.
  - meric 11y ago
    Yes and being intolerant of intolerance is to become intolerant ourselves. I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant, but I tolerate them. It's analogous to saying people who murder murderers are murderers. Which is true.
    - JadeNB 11y ago
      > I have a strong distaste for those who are intolerant of the intolerant, even more so than those who are merely intolerant Wait, seriously? So, if someone says "I don't want my kids ever to meet gay people", and I say "I don't want my kids ever to meet that guy", then you feel that I'm more in the wrong?
      - meric 11y ago
        Yes. The first person is showing prejudice with an exclusionary attitude. The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it. The first person is prejudiced against gays based on his own experience growing up as well as his ignorance. The first person is being who they are. The second person is doing what they are doing because that's what society is telling them to do. (Of course if the second person is the gay person the first person is prejudiced against, then I would sympathise with them instead because they was the target of the first person's prejudice). And to think you're good when you're judging people with the same attitude to align with society's prevailing morals is distasteful to me. But I understand it and I will still let my kids meet you. It's human nature to follow the crowd.
        thatcat 11y ago
        >The second person is showing exactly the same while being self-righteous about it The first person is ignorant, the second person is annoyed with ignorance. Ignorance isn't the same as being in a minority group. There's no human right to remain ignorant.
        meric 11y ago
        If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them. Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
        11y ago
ralmidani 11y ago
The success of GNU/Linux, Postgres, Python, Django, Ruby, Rails, Node, Wordpress, jQuery, Bootstrap, Ember, etc. suggests otherwise.
- ethanbond 11y ago
  The success of Wolfram suggests otherwise, actually.
  - thatcat 11y ago
    what is the adoption rate of wolfram? Are there any use cases outside of demonstration/education where python wouldn't work better?
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      You're missing the point. If people demanded that Wolfram were open, then it would be either a) open or b) gone. The fact that it's neither of those would suggest that people don't want it open badly enough. Listing off projects that are open to show that people like open things is absolutely irrelevant.
      - ralmidani 11y ago
        You missed my point. The argument made by exolymph was users do not want freedom. I listed projects which are among the best and most popular in their class, in no small part due to their respect of users' freedom.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Were those Wolfram's users? And did they reject his app in favor of the free alternatives? I think your point is missing the point. The market of people who just want a solution to work and be easy to use is much, much larger than the market that explicitly demands BSD or GPL-style freedom. Wolfram serves the former. Makes more money that way, too.

gertef 11y ago

This comment comes off as shrill, without an explanation of what "freedom" means here, and why it is important. Mathematica positions itself as a mathematical appliance, like a fridge or an oven or a car, none of which are generally running free software.

ralmidani 11y ago
Lots of appliances run on GNU/Linux, but prevent users from modifying the software via the bootloader.
wolfgke 11y ago
> Mathematica positions itself as a mathematical appliance, like a fridge or an oven or a car, none of which are generally running free software. And that is why there are Linux gurus that will invest lots of time to get GNU/Linux run on their fridge - because there are people who will not accept this status quo.
asddubs 11y ago
the difference is that a fridge or a car is not a piece of software, and mathematica is.
Chris2048 11y ago
shrill: betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness. 5. marked by great intensity; keen. I'm pretty sure the entire FLOSS movement outlines what is meant by software 'freedom' in this context, and why it is important. And if you don't see the difference between a software "application" and consumer electrical appliances, I'd say you're being willfully ignorant.