8 ms·

Why open source failed

6 points by syntaxfree 18y ago

sadiq 18y ago
A brilliant piece of satire. Best part was: "It’s interesting to see how the demise of Linux as a consumer platform... contrasts with the starry-eyed hopes of the open-source project." Classic.
TrevorJ 18y ago
Too busy working my professional day job to reply right now...Gotta get back to using an open source 3D animation package to deliver a project while I ponder the demise of open source software.
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  Then again, Bryce was developed in a proprietary environment and then released as open source in an attempt to build goodwill. Was it even improved in terms of speed or stability? I can't imagine open source developers actually adding features to it. The reason I had the time to blog about it is that Microsoft Word's control revision system is simple enough that I got my job done way before deadlines. As much as I love TeX typesetting, that would NEVER happen in a LaTeX+CVS/Subversion/darcs/git environment.I'd be still struggling the "quantum theory of patches".
  - tjr 18y ago
    Hmmm. I've used Texinfo+CVS+patches extensively working for the GNU Project. I despise using Microsoft Word for anything but the most simple tasks. Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
    - syntaxfree 18y ago
      Note "GNU Project" and how the text emphasizes that "open source software attends to the hacker community's needs, not the end user needs". I did some solo writing with LaTeX and darcs, but there's no way that would fly in an office environment. And I work with very smart people -- my main work colleague has finished his MSc. in physics at age 21 before dropping out of academia. But should we bothered to establish a protocol and working practices to collaborate on documents? Microsoft Word does that and enough document type-setting/FrameMaker stuff that five-digit projects are written straight into Microsoft Word with no posterior editing work. Microsoft Word's UI is sometimes counterintuitive, but it's simple enough that people outside the hacker community can use it. One problem with open source I didn't point out because the main idea was to focus on de Landa is that too many people thought competing with Microsoft had much to do with compatibility. If there was a working environment for collaborative writing as usable as Microsoft Word people would eventually go for it because it's cheaper. I know, I know. I actually wrote my undergrad thesis on compatibility issues in software competition and how Apple was attempting a "partial compatibility strategy" by adopting Unix while keeping Macintoshness. But with time I realized that wasn't really the core problem, it was just a road bump.
      - tjr 18y ago
        Sure, I wouldn't expect most computer users to learn TeX/CVS/etc. I wouldn't even expect a majority of new hackers to learn it any more. But for those that do learn it to a sufficient level of mastery, it's not only usable but at times wonderful. I think there are actually two "problems" going on at the same time. On one hand, open source software is "too difficult" for most people to use. I agree. But on the other hand, most people aren't putting that much effort into learning the software. Is software supposed to be easy to use? As much as possible, I would think. But some "hacker" software that has a tremendous initial learning curve (TeX, Emacs, even Lisp, depending on your background) offers equally tremendous rewards over similar software that is easier to learn. The reason, perhaps, is that in learning TeX, you are learning how to prepare documents at a more abstract level than Microsoft Word. The resulting documents may be largely identical, but TeX offers the user more power and control in exchange for taking the time to learn how to operate it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your job is to prepare documents. It may be a totally awful thing if you only need to prepare an occasional document, as the benefits of TeX are not likely to be worth the effort required to learn it for you.
        syntaxfree 18y ago
        We don't need more power than we already have. I have done the whole hacker grand tour (well, I don't know C but I know Haskell and some Common Lisp), learned Emacs, became profficient in Vim, etc. etc. The cost-benefit equation just doesn't work for "hacker software" as you say it. We're busy doing econometrics (we do use GNU R, but Matlab, Stata and SAS are far superior for most work) and statistical work, and just need to get reports done. We're trying to make money in here, not join a religion.
        tjr 18y ago
        Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
        syntaxfree 18y ago
        People sometimes make software usage a religion. It's only human. I was a Haskell religious nut for a while. (Then I stopped programming and changed hobbies to skateboarding. But I'm studying modal logic from Konyndyk, so I'm still in the Haskell-ish geekspace).
  - jcl 18y ago
    You wouldn't happen to have a link to open-source Bryce, by any chance? The only relevant link I can find in Google is a newsgroup post dated six weeks ago indicating that they might open-source it, so I'm not surprised it hasn't been improved yet, assuming it was released. Blender of course has been open-source for years now and is being improved, but note that it too was proprietary software prior to being open-sourced.
    - syntaxfree 18y ago
      I meant Blender. My bad ;)
      - rtf 18y ago
        If you meant Blender then your offhand remark of "was it ever improved" kind of missed the mark: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ is the second open movie project based around Blender - this one and the first, Elephant's Dream, have pushed major improvements into Blender. They're doing a game project next. The commercial packages can still claim a lot of additional features, but Blender is clearly catching up.
      - jcl 18y ago
        I have to agree with rtf, then: Blender is actually a counterexample to your point. It has improved dramatically since it was open-sourced; it has actually implemented some features (like automated texture unfolding and Python scripting) earlier than its proprietary competitors.
        tokipin 18y ago
        blender is a great example of how poor people can be at UI design. why open source usually very shitty UI?? it's unfortunate, and is the major reason i stay away from linux (that and font rendering, which is related)
        jcl 18y ago
        I'm not going to disagree about Blender's interface; I don't like it much, either. But I am used to other 3D programs, so perhaps I am not the best judge. UI is a tricky thing, especially in graphics applications, where once you're used to one application, the others feel wrong. And especially in 3D applications, where there's no standardization -- look at Max and Maya, both now from the same company, or look at ZBrush, whose interface is equal parts brilliance and lunacy (although version 3 is much improved). This is not merely an open-source vs. proprietary thing; Blender's interface was at least as bad when it was a proprietary product. Wings3D, on the other hand, has one of my favorite interfaces. It's open source, but its interface is inspired by Nendo, a defunct commercial product.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
ajross 18y ago
Yikes. It's like a "Fr33 software is teh suxor!" flame written by a literary analysis poseur. Not a lot of insight, but wow, can he nest a dependent clause! Meh. Sure, whatever. Open source hasn't taken over the world, hasn't killed windows, and is most successful on the server. I guess that's "failed" for some interpretations of the term.
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  It's successful on the server space because Linux and friends are a cheapie imitation of Unix environments and Microsoft server offerings plain suck. Open source failed to produce new concepts -- to "explore the subspace of possible programs", as de Landa puts it. It probably wouldn't have caught on the server space if Unix wasn't such an integral part of hacker culture anyway. The whole point of the (admittedly badly writtten. I'm not a native speaker, I'm just learning how to write more complex essays) article is that open source remained glued to hacker culture and it failed to deliver its promises or even confirm Linus' Law ("given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow") as poor QA killed Linux on the desktop space.
  - gravity 18y ago
    Nothing has failed yet. You act like the project is over and done with. It's not. Linux has conquered pretty much every single space but the desktop. This is a huge success, especially when ten years ago it was exciting to read about any company deploying Linux publicly in any sort of way. Now it's expected. As for the desktop, the work isn't finished, and it'll take a very long time to get to the point where it's a real contender. It's not a QA issue. The Linux desktop of today is actually of very high quality. It's that it's a very difficult space to compete in.
    - syntaxfree 18y ago
      It isn't such a hard space to compete in. There's a huge movement towards cheaper PCs. But anyway, for a while there was a huge gaping window when Linux was "cool" (the way OS X is now) and many many people tried it. The QA sucked by then. I mean, I was a true believer -- I went all the way building a Gentoo desktop and whatnot. But none of the readymade distributions I tried (SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora, etc.) were up to the task of fueling a working environment where I don't have to worry about the working environment. After a while, I just got a Mac and quit bothering with useless geekery. I went geeking into functional programming instead. Did you get the news that the next batch of OLPC laptops will use Windows XP? They weren't bribed by Microsoft. It's not a matter of interface either, they'll keep the same interface.
josefresco 18y ago
11 external links in that one article, at most 2 of which are optional. I see he went to the Steve Gillmor school of article writing.
eugenejen 18y ago
Hi syntaxfree, I suggest you to read a blog post from my friend. http://bob.wyman.us/main/2008/04/liquidity-and-c.html#more http://bob.wyman.us/main/2008/04/liquidity-and-c.html#more I hold similar point of view like him. Because I think the current problem is in fact open source succeeds greatly, but to bring a usable system to end users requires integration and current integration on desktop linux is not that great. Another thing is for non native speakers, maybe we should just try to write sentences as simple as possible. I learned an old story from an old friend. She and her husband went to a graduate school in midwest and both were required to take a simple writing test. Her husband failed badly while she did great. She said to me : "I don't remember all those complex grammar rules of English so I just tried to write everything as simple as possible and my husband is proud of his study of grammar and tried to write very complex sentences". I like PG and NNT's writings because they are simple and elegant. The most important is what do you want to say and can you say it clear. I remember when I was in graduate school, a rule is that "If one can not even clearly describe his/her dissertation, then it is impossible to defense it". (I was science major, but I guess for literary and philosophy, the opposite holds true because both disciplines adopt a different strategy: defense by obscuring) edit: Can anyone tell me why this gets down voted? Because of url inside a post? I don't know where and why in this post makes people feel bad to down vote it?
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  Integration is a part of QA. I explicitly held that QA was one of the two main drivers of Linux's failure. And don't kid yourself, it's definitive -- Linux evokes images of crummy half-baked software in most people's heads.
  - niels_olson 18y ago
    People who describe themselves as "young-ish" similarly evoke images of crummy half-baked ideas. Things grow. As you grow older you will learn to try to not discount the entity you are presented with now based on impressions made in the past.
    - syntaxfree 18y ago
syntaxfree 18y ago
I added an "elevator summary" to the beginning of the text, prompted by the friendly remarks in these comments noting that it's hard to find the point I'm trying to get across.
notauser 18y ago
Ouch, rather hard to read. However: - Open source (in a way that works) is here for web 2.0. Check out the AGPL (I'm releasing a big project under it this weekend.) This offers the same advantages for companies as desktop/server open source (no license administration, no data lock in, market price for consulting). - OSS is not a failure. It ships on 99%+ of all desktop/laptop computers (including Windows and OS X machines), and even if you limit your count to shipped devices that have more open than closed software then Open Source still wins (routers, cell phones, appliances, set top boxes, even watches!) - OSS doesn't have to dominate to win. As long as it fits the needs of the people who are developing it, then it will continue to mature. Maturity will (and has!) naturally bring more users and more development money. - This is really the first full year you in which can buy consumer computers from tier 1 vendors with Linux pre-loaded. (HP, Dell and ASUS - the last of which has shipped a million plus units.) This was a precondition for mass market success. As the offerings mature expect sales to grow - up until now Linux wasn't really in the competition, but rather just a curiosity in the market.
syntaxfree 18y ago
For the six years I spent reading Slashdot, I read most of the points being made in this comments page. I'm answering them because I'm waiting for some other stuff to happen. But, oh well, these remarks keep on being made by the inside people and the world keeps moving on doing actual stuff.
- tokipin 18y ago
  don't delude yourself
Leon 18y ago
Failed? As in how? Do you think open source will die or something? Do you realize that hackers will never stop hacking on software - and that this is the important part? That whatever happens to proprietary software developed, it stays with the company that built it, companies which do have the ability to die? For open source software to die, to fail, would be for all open source hackers to die; nothing less will stop them from improving/working on their projects. Seriously, have you ever met an open source developer and contrasted this to a corporate programmer who has never worked on open source software? It's pretty obvious who's better.
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  > Do you realize that hackers will never stop hacking on software Will they? Or will they move onto theoretical computer science hacking (like Sigfpe and stuff) or even formal logic (like I did)? Is meant-for-widespread-use hacking gonna continue? That is an open question. You really should read the de Landa essay. It's surprising no one has; mine was just commentary.
  - syntaxfree 18y ago
    (I just looked at google analytics. _One_ person clicked through onto the text I was merely providing commentary to. Manuel de Landa is an actual philosopher, I'm just a crummy young-ish blogger ;))
    - astine 18y ago
      Perhaps, then, you should have posted a link to the paper rather than to your 'crummy' commentary.
      - demallien 18y ago
        No, the decision to post a link to his commentary was probably right. If the commentary gets this much discussion, but nobody clicks through to the article, it's fairly clear that we aren't terribly interested in the article, but we are interested in the commentary :-)

6 points by syntaxfree 18y ago

sadiq 18y ago

A brilliant piece of satire. Best part was: "It’s interesting to see how the demise of Linux as a consumer platform... contrasts with the starry-eyed hopes of the open-source project." Classic.

TrevorJ 18y ago

Too busy working my professional day job to reply right now...Gotta get back to using an open source 3D animation package to deliver a project while I ponder the demise of open source software.

syntaxfree 18y ago
Then again, Bryce was developed in a proprietary environment and then released as open source in an attempt to build goodwill. Was it even improved in terms of speed or stability? I can't imagine open source developers actually adding features to it. The reason I had the time to blog about it is that Microsoft Word's control revision system is simple enough that I got my job done way before deadlines. As much as I love TeX typesetting, that would NEVER happen in a LaTeX+CVS/Subversion/darcs/git environment.I'd be still struggling the "quantum theory of patches".
- tjr 18y ago
  Hmmm. I've used Texinfo+CVS+patches extensively working for the GNU Project. I despise using Microsoft Word for anything but the most simple tasks. Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
  - syntaxfree 18y ago
    Note "GNU Project" and how the text emphasizes that "open source software attends to the hacker community's needs, not the end user needs". I did some solo writing with LaTeX and darcs, but there's no way that would fly in an office environment. And I work with very smart people -- my main work colleague has finished his MSc. in physics at age 21 before dropping out of academia. But should we bothered to establish a protocol and working practices to collaborate on documents? Microsoft Word does that and enough document type-setting/FrameMaker stuff that five-digit projects are written straight into Microsoft Word with no posterior editing work. Microsoft Word's UI is sometimes counterintuitive, but it's simple enough that people outside the hacker community can use it. One problem with open source I didn't point out because the main idea was to focus on de Landa is that too many people thought competing with Microsoft had much to do with compatibility. If there was a working environment for collaborative writing as usable as Microsoft Word people would eventually go for it because it's cheaper. I know, I know. I actually wrote my undergrad thesis on compatibility issues in software competition and how Apple was attempting a "partial compatibility strategy" by adopting Unix while keeping Macintoshness. But with time I realized that wasn't really the core problem, it was just a road bump.
    - tjr 18y ago
      Sure, I wouldn't expect most computer users to learn TeX/CVS/etc. I wouldn't even expect a majority of new hackers to learn it any more. But for those that do learn it to a sufficient level of mastery, it's not only usable but at times wonderful. I think there are actually two "problems" going on at the same time. On one hand, open source software is "too difficult" for most people to use. I agree. But on the other hand, most people aren't putting that much effort into learning the software. Is software supposed to be easy to use? As much as possible, I would think. But some "hacker" software that has a tremendous initial learning curve (TeX, Emacs, even Lisp, depending on your background) offers equally tremendous rewards over similar software that is easier to learn. The reason, perhaps, is that in learning TeX, you are learning how to prepare documents at a more abstract level than Microsoft Word. The resulting documents may be largely identical, but TeX offers the user more power and control in exchange for taking the time to learn how to operate it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your job is to prepare documents. It may be a totally awful thing if you only need to prepare an occasional document, as the benefits of TeX are not likely to be worth the effort required to learn it for you.
      - syntaxfree 18y ago
        We don't need more power than we already have. I have done the whole hacker grand tour (well, I don't know C but I know Haskell and some Common Lisp), learned Emacs, became profficient in Vim, etc. etc. The cost-benefit equation just doesn't work for "hacker software" as you say it. We're busy doing econometrics (we do use GNU R, but Matlab, Stata and SAS are far superior for most work) and statistical work, and just need to get reports done. We're trying to make money in here, not join a religion.
        tjr 18y ago
        Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
        syntaxfree 18y ago
        People sometimes make software usage a religion. It's only human. I was a Haskell religious nut for a while. (Then I stopped programming and changed hobbies to skateboarding. But I'm studying modal logic from Konyndyk, so I'm still in the Haskell-ish geekspace).
- jcl 18y ago
  You wouldn't happen to have a link to open-source Bryce, by any chance? The only relevant link I can find in Google is a newsgroup post dated six weeks ago indicating that they might open-source it, so I'm not surprised it hasn't been improved yet, assuming it was released. Blender of course has been open-source for years now and is being improved, but note that it too was proprietary software prior to being open-sourced.
  - syntaxfree 18y ago
    I meant Blender. My bad ;)
    - rtf 18y ago
      If you meant Blender then your offhand remark of "was it ever improved" kind of missed the mark: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ is the second open movie project based around Blender - this one and the first, Elephant's Dream, have pushed major improvements into Blender. They're doing a game project next. The commercial packages can still claim a lot of additional features, but Blender is clearly catching up.
    - jcl 18y ago
      I have to agree with rtf, then: Blender is actually a counterexample to your point. It has improved dramatically since it was open-sourced; it has actually implemented some features (like automated texture unfolding and Python scripting) earlier than its proprietary competitors.
      - tokipin 18y ago
        blender is a great example of how poor people can be at UI design. why open source usually very shitty UI?? it's unfortunate, and is the major reason i stay away from linux (that and font rendering, which is related)
        jcl 18y ago
        I'm not going to disagree about Blender's interface; I don't like it much, either. But I am used to other 3D programs, so perhaps I am not the best judge. UI is a tricky thing, especially in graphics applications, where once you're used to one application, the others feel wrong. And especially in 3D applications, where there's no standardization -- look at Max and Maya, both now from the same company, or look at ZBrush, whose interface is equal parts brilliance and lunacy (although version 3 is much improved). This is not merely an open-source vs. proprietary thing; Blender's interface was at least as bad when it was a proprietary product. Wings3D, on the other hand, has one of my favorite interfaces. It's open source, but its interface is inspired by Nendo, a defunct commercial product.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

ajross 18y ago

Yikes. It's like a "Fr33 software is teh suxor!" flame written by a literary analysis poseur. Not a lot of insight, but wow, can he nest a dependent clause! Meh. Sure, whatever. Open source hasn't taken over the world, hasn't killed windows, and is most successful on the server. I guess that's "failed" for some interpretations of the term.

syntaxfree 18y ago
It's successful on the server space because Linux and friends are a cheapie imitation of Unix environments and Microsoft server offerings plain suck. Open source failed to produce new concepts -- to "explore the subspace of possible programs", as de Landa puts it. It probably wouldn't have caught on the server space if Unix wasn't such an integral part of hacker culture anyway. The whole point of the (admittedly badly writtten. I'm not a native speaker, I'm just learning how to write more complex essays) article is that open source remained glued to hacker culture and it failed to deliver its promises or even confirm Linus' Law ("given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow") as poor QA killed Linux on the desktop space.
- gravity 18y ago
  Nothing has failed yet. You act like the project is over and done with. It's not. Linux has conquered pretty much every single space but the desktop. This is a huge success, especially when ten years ago it was exciting to read about any company deploying Linux publicly in any sort of way. Now it's expected. As for the desktop, the work isn't finished, and it'll take a very long time to get to the point where it's a real contender. It's not a QA issue. The Linux desktop of today is actually of very high quality. It's that it's a very difficult space to compete in.
  - syntaxfree 18y ago
    It isn't such a hard space to compete in. There's a huge movement towards cheaper PCs. But anyway, for a while there was a huge gaping window when Linux was "cool" (the way OS X is now) and many many people tried it. The QA sucked by then. I mean, I was a true believer -- I went all the way building a Gentoo desktop and whatnot. But none of the readymade distributions I tried (SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora, etc.) were up to the task of fueling a working environment where I don't have to worry about the working environment. After a while, I just got a Mac and quit bothering with useless geekery. I went geeking into functional programming instead. Did you get the news that the next batch of OLPC laptops will use Windows XP? They weren't bribed by Microsoft. It's not a matter of interface either, they'll keep the same interface.

josefresco 18y ago

11 external links in that one article, at most 2 of which are optional. I see he went to the Steve Gillmor school of article writing.

eugenejen 18y ago

Hi syntaxfree, I suggest you to read a blog post from my friend. http://bob.wyman.us/main/2008/04/liquidity-and-c.html#more http://bob.wyman.us/main/2008/04/liquidity-and-c.html#more I hold similar point of view like him. Because I think the current problem is in fact open source succeeds greatly, but to bring a usable system to end users requires integration and current integration on desktop linux is not that great. Another thing is for non native speakers, maybe we should just try to write sentences as simple as possible. I learned an old story from an old friend. She and her husband went to a graduate school in midwest and both were required to take a simple writing test. Her husband failed badly while she did great. She said to me : "I don't remember all those complex grammar rules of English so I just tried to write everything as simple as possible and my husband is proud of his study of grammar and tried to write very complex sentences". I like PG and NNT's writings because they are simple and elegant. The most important is what do you want to say and can you say it clear. I remember when I was in graduate school, a rule is that "If one can not even clearly describe his/her dissertation, then it is impossible to defense it". (I was science major, but I guess for literary and philosophy, the opposite holds true because both disciplines adopt a different strategy: defense by obscuring) edit: Can anyone tell me why this gets down voted? Because of url inside a post? I don't know where and why in this post makes people feel bad to down vote it?

syntaxfree 18y ago
Integration is a part of QA. I explicitly held that QA was one of the two main drivers of Linux's failure. And don't kid yourself, it's definitive -- Linux evokes images of crummy half-baked software in most people's heads.
- niels_olson 18y ago
  People who describe themselves as "young-ish" similarly evoke images of crummy half-baked ideas. Things grow. As you grow older you will learn to try to not discount the entity you are presented with now based on impressions made in the past.
  - syntaxfree 18y ago

syntaxfree 18y ago

I added an "elevator summary" to the beginning of the text, prompted by the friendly remarks in these comments noting that it's hard to find the point I'm trying to get across.

notauser 18y ago

Ouch, rather hard to read. However: - Open source (in a way that works) is here for web 2.0. Check out the AGPL (I'm releasing a big project under it this weekend.) This offers the same advantages for companies as desktop/server open source (no license administration, no data lock in, market price for consulting). - OSS is not a failure. It ships on 99%+ of all desktop/laptop computers (including Windows and OS X machines), and even if you limit your count to shipped devices that have more open than closed software then Open Source still wins (routers, cell phones, appliances, set top boxes, even watches!) - OSS doesn't have to dominate to win. As long as it fits the needs of the people who are developing it, then it will continue to mature. Maturity will (and has!) naturally bring more users and more development money. - This is really the first full year you in which can buy consumer computers from tier 1 vendors with Linux pre-loaded. (HP, Dell and ASUS - the last of which has shipped a million plus units.) This was a precondition for mass market success. As the offerings mature expect sales to grow - up until now Linux wasn't really in the competition, but rather just a curiosity in the market.

syntaxfree 18y ago

For the six years I spent reading Slashdot, I read most of the points being made in this comments page. I'm answering them because I'm waiting for some other stuff to happen. But, oh well, these remarks keep on being made by the inside people and the world keeps moving on doing actual stuff.

tokipin 18y ago
don't delude yourself

Leon 18y ago

Failed? As in how? Do you think open source will die or something? Do you realize that hackers will never stop hacking on software - and that this is the important part? That whatever happens to proprietary software developed, it stays with the company that built it, companies which do have the ability to die? For open source software to die, to fail, would be for all open source hackers to die; nothing less will stop them from improving/working on their projects. Seriously, have you ever met an open source developer and contrasted this to a corporate programmer who has never worked on open source software? It's pretty obvious who's better.

syntaxfree 18y ago
> Do you realize that hackers will never stop hacking on software Will they? Or will they move onto theoretical computer science hacking (like Sigfpe and stuff) or even formal logic (like I did)? Is meant-for-widespread-use hacking gonna continue? That is an open question. You really should read the de Landa essay. It's surprising no one has; mine was just commentary.
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  (I just looked at google analytics. _One_ person clicked through onto the text I was merely providing commentary to. Manuel de Landa is an actual philosopher, I'm just a crummy young-ish blogger ;))
  - astine 18y ago
    Perhaps, then, you should have posted a link to the paper rather than to your 'crummy' commentary.
    - demallien 18y ago
      No, the decision to post a link to his commentary was probably right. If the commentary gets this much discussion, but nobody clicks through to the article, it's fairly clear that we aren't terribly interested in the article, but we are interested in the commentary :-)