8 ms·

What a ridiculous post. The quote in question is a reference the Trojan horse, so unless you are suggesting that loading Mathematica onto the Pi will, in fact,

What a ridiculous post. The quote in question is a reference the Trojan horse, so unless you are suggesting that loading Mathematica onto the Pi will, in fact, destroy it, I don't see any merit to this analogy. And while it's true that Steve Wolfram is incredibly arrogant, so too is the act of publicly shaming him for refusing to share his code, no? The man has spent the last 25 years perfecting his product and along comes you, acting like you have some God-given right to inspect its inner workings. Gimme a break.

malandrew 13y ago
No, this is actually valid criticism. People are generally adverse to learning new software programs, when the one they've been using for years has served them so well. With this in mind, we'll be exposing thousands of students to closed source software when the open source alternatives are more than adequate for teaching. By the time students need features in Mathematica that are not present in the open source alternatives, they will have the skills to contribute those features back as pull requests. This is a Trojan horse. It undermines the open source alternatives. The Pi foundation here is betraying its open source roots.
- hdevalence 13y ago
  > The Pi foundation is betraying it's open source roots. No, it's not betraying it's open source roots. It has none. The Raspberry Pi has been a proprietary environment dressed up in open source clothing from the beginning. The Raspberry Pi has most of its processor silicon devoted to a chip that you are not allowed to touch -- the ARM6 core is really more of a coprocessor to the GPU, which comes with a big binary blob. OK, you say, forget the GPU, I'll just use the little ARM core. Nope! You can't boot the system at all without the blob. Then we've got their laughable attempt to pass off a shim that delegates function calls as an open-source driver. Or their support for software patents, with patent-restricted chip features that require separately purchased licences. The Pi foundation's roots are with Broadcom, a company known very well for its hostility to open source.
  - TheCraiggers 13y ago
    I believe most of your complaints can be explained by their desire to create the cheapest device possible, but still powerful enough to be useful in an education setting. Corners had to be cut somewhere, and pure open hardware is expensive and hard to come by. If you want to drive the cost down, that typically means using popular silicon, which in turn typically means dealing with companies like Broadcom. Just because it's not 100% open source doesn't mean it has no roots there. I know this is hotly debated in many circles, but in my book it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Personally, I feel they made the right decision for their project. I'd rather introduce kids to linux, computing, and hacking on a device that is relatively open rather than on a purely open device that schools may not even be able to afford.
    - hdevalence 13y ago
      Don't get me wrong, the Pi is a positive development, and I'm glad it exists. But I don't think that we should think of it as something with open source roots. Sure, you're never going to get a 100% open device at these costs. But something like the BeagleBone Black is in the same price range as the Pi but doesn't have all of these issues (i.e., the lack of openness is not just due to pragmatic cost reasons, but also "because Broadcom".)
    - adestefan 13y ago
      The chip in the Pi was used because the guy that started the project works for Broadcom.
  - jwr 13y ago
    As a comparison, the Beaglebone Black (http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black) uses a TI chip, which is at least fully and properly documented. It is also better than the BCM chip at pretty much everything except high-resolution video decoding. The Raspberry Pi is a cool machine, but the "open source" hype about it is rather exaggerated.
    - wmf 13y ago
danparsonson 13y ago
> The quote in question is a reference the Trojan horse, so unless you are suggesting that loading Mathematica onto the Pi will, in fact, destroy it, I don't see any merit to this analogy. It is, as you say, an analogy and not to be taken literally. Someone offering a suspiciously good gift can be expected to expect something in return that may not be to your benefit - particularly if the gift giver is not known for being a philanthropist.
- crashandburn4 13y ago
  Maybe a good counterpoint would be to suggest that OP "not look a gift horse in the mouth". That being said it isn't too difficult to imagine Wolfram having ulterior motives. Overall I think it's a good thing and a good act done for bad reasons is still a good act (though agreed, source code would be nice)
  - jordigh 13y ago
    Well, what is the possible catch? I can't see it. My immediate guess is that they think the money isn't in selling the software itself but to have some sort of cloud-based subscription model, and having it on a Raspbian without charge would be a good lure. What ulterior motives do you foresee?
    - baldfat 13y ago
      I define myself as a pragmatic computer user. I use Linux because it is the best tool for the job, but I use closed source programs when they are the best tool. In program why would someone want a closed source solution that cost $2,000 for profession use and $200 for a one year personal license when we have so many great Open Source languages? Why program in something closed source any more? I can't see that working especially in statistics and math. How would any closed source (secrets) Mathmatica be a better option than an open source language (Sage)? Really want to understand the thought process. Also Trojan hHrse analogy is always used when referring to closed source programs coming into an environment. Take your issue up with RMS (Richard Stallman)
hdevalence 13y ago
> along comes you, acting like you have some God-given right to inspect its internals Well,it's mathematics software, so it's actually really not unreasonable. Fortunately, the rest of mathematics has moved past the seventeenth-century style of "Here's my result, the proof is secret". If Mathematica is intended to be suitable for mathematical research, then its source must be open so that the results are auditable. Other mathematics software like Sage doesn't have this problem, and is already available for the Raspberry Pi for free, obviating the need to use Mathematica.
- tzs 13y ago
  > If Mathematica is intended to be suitable for mathematical research, then its source must be open so that the results are auditable You don't need source to audit the results. It's a tool, just like a calculator or a table of logarithms or a table of integrals. If I use an HP calculator for a calculation, for instance, you don't audit my results by examining the source for the calculator's firmware and convincing yourself it is right and then accepting my results. No, you audit my results by doing the calculation on your Casio calculator and seeing if it comes out the same.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > You don't need source to audit the results. In fact, you do. Modern computer mathematical results require full exposure, nothing can be left to the imagination. This is true and understandable. Going back to the first important computer mathematical result (the solution to the four-color map conjecture¹ in 1976), to be taken seriously, computer math results have been required to be fully transparent. Imagine auditing a cancer cure without knowing anything about the methods or tools. Same idea. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
    - taliesinb 13y ago
      I actually somewhat sympathize with your view. But I think you overstate the problem: if someone discovers something with Mathematica, they can then formalize it with an open proof assistant like Coq before they publish, and modern journals in fact encourage this sort of thing. Really, it's not a zero-sum-game between open-source and commercial tools.
mistercow 13y ago
>so unless you are suggesting that loading Mathematica onto the Pi will, in fact, destroy it, I don't see any merit to this analogy That's not really how you refute an analogy. In any analogy, you can find differences, but not all differences are relevant. You could say "Mathematica isn't made of wood", or "Mathematica isn't full of soldiers", but these differences don't weaken the analogy. You have to look at the claimed similarity (in this case, ulterior motives) and show a difference that conflicts with that claim. You have failed to do this, and so your refutation falls flat.
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  The Greeks could not 'apt-get uninstall --purge' the Trojan Horse. QED.
  - tomrod 13y ago
    The Trojans could--just set the wood horse aflame.
  - kyzyl 13y ago
    QED... as in, "I've demonstrated what I wanted to say, regardless of what the original claim was." OP was talking about fearing the 'gift' because it might be a ploy to get you data-locked into Wolfram's cloud suite, or some other kind of bait-and-switch. As in, there might be unforeseen consequences of embracing this offering. I don't think there was any implication that we might not be able to uninstall Mathematica. I think it's an apt analogy.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    My fellow bovine friend, you're now misinterpreting the analogy (and Greek mythology, but I assume you mistyped and meant "the Trojans" and not "the Greeks"). In the analogy, Troy is not a single person's computer. Troy is the software ecosystem. Consider Microsoft's old "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, which devastated the PC software ecosystem in the 90s. Was that problem solved by individual users uninstalling Microsoft's products? Of course not. Recovering from that destruction was a far more difficult and grueling process which isn't quite finished even today.
lutusp 13y ago
> acting like you have some God-given right to inspect its inner workings. As it happens, closed-source mathematical software is next to useless for anything serious, and for scientific work, it's fatal. This is the single biggest obstacle to programs like Mathematica -- it may be useful for experimentation, but once one intends to publish, it has to be completely excluded from the process. Imagine someone claiming to have cured cancer, but using a method that other laboratories cannot imitate or inspect, essentially black magic. That's what faces people who try to use Mathematica in scientific work. It violates the most basic principle of science -- transparency.
tomrod 13y ago
Not godgiven, but RMS philosophy...
sebkomianos 13y ago
Also, funny thing, the quote is not a reference to the Trojan horse but wisdom that derived from that trick the greeks pulled. It doesn't mean "don't allow wooden horses in your castle", it means "maybe there is something behind the obvious".

malandrew 13y ago

No, this is actually valid criticism. People are generally adverse to learning new software programs, when the one they've been using for years has served them so well. With this in mind, we'll be exposing thousands of students to closed source software when the open source alternatives are more than adequate for teaching. By the time students need features in Mathematica that are not present in the open source alternatives, they will have the skills to contribute those features back as pull requests. This is a Trojan horse. It undermines the open source alternatives. The Pi foundation here is betraying its open source roots.

hdevalence 13y ago
> The Pi foundation is betraying it's open source roots. No, it's not betraying it's open source roots. It has none. The Raspberry Pi has been a proprietary environment dressed up in open source clothing from the beginning. The Raspberry Pi has most of its processor silicon devoted to a chip that you are not allowed to touch -- the ARM6 core is really more of a coprocessor to the GPU, which comes with a big binary blob. OK, you say, forget the GPU, I'll just use the little ARM core. Nope! You can't boot the system at all without the blob. Then we've got their laughable attempt to pass off a shim that delegates function calls as an open-source driver. Or their support for software patents, with patent-restricted chip features that require separately purchased licences. The Pi foundation's roots are with Broadcom, a company known very well for its hostility to open source.
- TheCraiggers 13y ago
  I believe most of your complaints can be explained by their desire to create the cheapest device possible, but still powerful enough to be useful in an education setting. Corners had to be cut somewhere, and pure open hardware is expensive and hard to come by. If you want to drive the cost down, that typically means using popular silicon, which in turn typically means dealing with companies like Broadcom. Just because it's not 100% open source doesn't mean it has no roots there. I know this is hotly debated in many circles, but in my book it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Personally, I feel they made the right decision for their project. I'd rather introduce kids to linux, computing, and hacking on a device that is relatively open rather than on a purely open device that schools may not even be able to afford.
  - hdevalence 13y ago
    Don't get me wrong, the Pi is a positive development, and I'm glad it exists. But I don't think that we should think of it as something with open source roots. Sure, you're never going to get a 100% open device at these costs. But something like the BeagleBone Black is in the same price range as the Pi but doesn't have all of these issues (i.e., the lack of openness is not just due to pragmatic cost reasons, but also "because Broadcom".)
  - adestefan 13y ago
    The chip in the Pi was used because the guy that started the project works for Broadcom.
- jwr 13y ago
  As a comparison, the Beaglebone Black (http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black http://beagleboard.org/products/beaglebone%20black) uses a TI chip, which is at least fully and properly documented. It is also better than the BCM chip at pretty much everything except high-resolution video decoding. The Raspberry Pi is a cool machine, but the "open source" hype about it is rather exaggerated.
  - wmf 13y ago

danparsonson 13y ago

> The quote in question is a reference the Trojan horse, so unless you are suggesting that loading Mathematica onto the Pi will, in fact, destroy it, I don't see any merit to this analogy. It is, as you say, an analogy and not to be taken literally. Someone offering a suspiciously good gift can be expected to expect something in return that may not be to your benefit - particularly if the gift giver is not known for being a philanthropist.

crashandburn4 13y ago
Maybe a good counterpoint would be to suggest that OP "not look a gift horse in the mouth". That being said it isn't too difficult to imagine Wolfram having ulterior motives. Overall I think it's a good thing and a good act done for bad reasons is still a good act (though agreed, source code would be nice)
- jordigh 13y ago
  Well, what is the possible catch? I can't see it. My immediate guess is that they think the money isn't in selling the software itself but to have some sort of cloud-based subscription model, and having it on a Raspbian without charge would be a good lure. What ulterior motives do you foresee?
  - baldfat 13y ago
    I define myself as a pragmatic computer user. I use Linux because it is the best tool for the job, but I use closed source programs when they are the best tool. In program why would someone want a closed source solution that cost $2,000 for profession use and $200 for a one year personal license when we have so many great Open Source languages? Why program in something closed source any more? I can't see that working especially in statistics and math. How would any closed source (secrets) Mathmatica be a better option than an open source language (Sage)? Really want to understand the thought process. Also Trojan hHrse analogy is always used when referring to closed source programs coming into an environment. Take your issue up with RMS (Richard Stallman)

hdevalence 13y ago

> along comes you, acting like you have some God-given right to inspect its internals Well,it's mathematics software, so it's actually really not unreasonable. Fortunately, the rest of mathematics has moved past the seventeenth-century style of "Here's my result, the proof is secret". If Mathematica is intended to be suitable for mathematical research, then its source must be open so that the results are auditable. Other mathematics software like Sage doesn't have this problem, and is already available for the Raspberry Pi for free, obviating the need to use Mathematica.

tzs 13y ago
> If Mathematica is intended to be suitable for mathematical research, then its source must be open so that the results are auditable You don't need source to audit the results. It's a tool, just like a calculator or a table of logarithms or a table of integrals. If I use an HP calculator for a calculation, for instance, you don't audit my results by examining the source for the calculator's firmware and convincing yourself it is right and then accepting my results. No, you audit my results by doing the calculation on your Casio calculator and seeing if it comes out the same.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You don't need source to audit the results. In fact, you do. Modern computer mathematical results require full exposure, nothing can be left to the imagination. This is true and understandable. Going back to the first important computer mathematical result (the solution to the four-color map conjecture¹ in 1976), to be taken seriously, computer math results have been required to be fully transparent. Imagine auditing a cancer cure without knowing anything about the methods or tools. Same idea. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
  - taliesinb 13y ago
    I actually somewhat sympathize with your view. But I think you overstate the problem: if someone discovers something with Mathematica, they can then formalize it with an open proof assistant like Coq before they publish, and modern journals in fact encourage this sort of thing. Really, it's not a zero-sum-game between open-source and commercial tools.

mistercow 13y ago

>so unless you are suggesting that loading Mathematica onto the Pi will, in fact, destroy it, I don't see any merit to this analogy That's not really how you refute an analogy. In any analogy, you can find differences, but not all differences are relevant. You could say "Mathematica isn't made of wood", or "Mathematica isn't full of soldiers", but these differences don't weaken the analogy. You have to look at the claimed similarity (in this case, ulterior motives) and show a difference that conflicts with that claim. You have failed to do this, and so your refutation falls flat.

hyperbovine 13y ago
The Greeks could not 'apt-get uninstall --purge' the Trojan Horse. QED.
- tomrod 13y ago
  The Trojans could--just set the wood horse aflame.
- kyzyl 13y ago
  QED... as in, "I've demonstrated what I wanted to say, regardless of what the original claim was." OP was talking about fearing the 'gift' because it might be a ploy to get you data-locked into Wolfram's cloud suite, or some other kind of bait-and-switch. As in, there might be unforeseen consequences of embracing this offering. I don't think there was any implication that we might not be able to uninstall Mathematica. I think it's an apt analogy.
- mistercow 13y ago
  My fellow bovine friend, you're now misinterpreting the analogy (and Greek mythology, but I assume you mistyped and meant "the Trojans" and not "the Greeks"). In the analogy, Troy is not a single person's computer. Troy is the software ecosystem. Consider Microsoft's old "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, which devastated the PC software ecosystem in the 90s. Was that problem solved by individual users uninstalling Microsoft's products? Of course not. Recovering from that destruction was a far more difficult and grueling process which isn't quite finished even today.

lutusp 13y ago

> acting like you have some God-given right to inspect its inner workings. As it happens, closed-source mathematical software is next to useless for anything serious, and for scientific work, it's fatal. This is the single biggest obstacle to programs like Mathematica -- it may be useful for experimentation, but once one intends to publish, it has to be completely excluded from the process. Imagine someone claiming to have cured cancer, but using a method that other laboratories cannot imitate or inspect, essentially black magic. That's what faces people who try to use Mathematica in scientific work. It violates the most basic principle of science -- transparency.

tomrod 13y ago

Not godgiven, but RMS philosophy...

sebkomianos 13y ago

Also, funny thing, the quote is not a reference to the Trojan horse but wisdom that derived from that trick the greeks pulled. It doesn't mean "don't allow wooden horses in your castle", it means "maybe there is something behind the obvious".