On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:14:29 -0500, Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> __/ [ Linonut ] on Monday 18 September 2006 21:50 \__
>>
>>> SAS ported JMP to Linux in 2003, and now they've ported it to 64-bit
>>> Linux. SAS seems proud to link to this article, which appear in the
>>> September 2006 Linux Journal:
>>>
>>> http://www.jmp.com/about/news/linux_journal/index.shtml
>>>
>>> Good on ya, GNU! Nice of ya to cooperate with a proprietary software
>>> outfit.
>>
>> Opinion: proprietary scientific software is still non-'scientific' in its
>> spirit. It often makes the user depend on very expensive licenses in order
>> to do some analysis or run some simple code. It also hides the way it
>> operates; black boxes are means of discouraging education through curiosity.
>> That, for example, is why projects like Octave emerge, which mimic the
>> behaviour of MATLAB and other scientific computing packages/languages.
>
> But but, JMP has a GUUUUUUUUIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
>
> Linux may not always have the most "user-friendly" (whatever the hell
> that means) software, but it sometimes has some pretty powerful code.
A typical end user could care less.
To them, the software is a blackbox, data in ===> data out.
The problem with the OSS community is that they actually believe that
having the source is directly beneficial to the majority of users out
there.
It is not.
Doctors use billing systems.
Cashiers use POS systems.
Audio engineers use DAW's
Video engineers use Video workstations.
Beyond some simple scripting for batch processing, and even that is point
and click, people don't have the desire nor the time, as a rule, to play
with source code.
|
|
