Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Free Software brings affordability, transparency to mathematics
housetier:
I don't see how I would need vmware. Since I seldomly read an entire webpage, can you guys tell me what I have overlooked?
Lashiec:
Yes, it's in the installation instructions. Linux and Mac OS X users don't need it. I assume it does not have a native port for Windows, and the image must bundle a Linux distro with only the essential to run the program. Besides, the installation packages for those OSs are far smaller. Yeah, I know about the differences between OSs, but...
On the other hand, it seems only 3 distros are supported.
housetier:
ah no wonder I overlooked it! I didn't look at that. Thanks for pointing it out :)
urlwolf:
From slashdot:
"mapping a 12-dimensional object to calculating rainfall patterns under global warming"
I can do that in Perl, C, assembler, and any other Turing complete language. But I use Mathematica because it is full of functionality, fairly reliable, and has a very elegant programming paradigm. Also, as a student, it'll cost me $100-150, depending on where I live, for the lifetime of my studentship, assuming no site license; the kinds of business that run this software commercially really don't care too much about a $2500 license fee.
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).
[ Reply to This ]
Re:FLOSS misses the point again (Score:5, Informative)
by mhansen444 (1200253) on Saturday December 08, @10:25AM (#21624065)
Since you specifically mentioned Mathematica, I'd like to address some reasons why Sage was created when something like Mathematica exists. While good for some types of problems (calculus, solving equations, etc.), Mathematica is not so good at a number of other ones (linear algebra, abstract algebra, number theory). Many of these are important to the Sage developers who need this type of functionality. Mathematica's programming language is a whole lot less flexible than a "real" programming language like Python. Plus, with Mathematica, you aren't allowed to change the internals -- you're stuck with what you get.
These were all reasons that led William Stein to start up Sage.
--- End quote ---
Good point.
Do we have any mathematica addicts here? Can you comment? I find the workbook idea great.
In R you end up with a bunch of data files, graph files, and source code. Good luck finding which chunk of code generated each graph! (I think this is an important problem!).
With mathematica, you have everything integrated into a single proprietary file.
It's kind of like comparing oneNote with having a messy tree of small txt files, graphs, sounds, and other stuff that make references to one another, but worse.
If anyone knows how to use R without having to orchestrate 100s of small files, speak up :)
urlwolf:
btw, maxima looks nice too.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version