Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Running a Research Lab on Free Software?

Posted by Cliff on from the breaking-the-proprietary-stranglehold dept.

Neurotensor asks: "My lab is researching quantum computing, and I don't like the fact that Windows / Visual Basic [seems to be] the preferred solution for controlling the experiments. It's not just a pride thing, unlike many colleagues I know what I'm missing out on, in the free software world. I've wasted a *lot* of time and effort trying to implement some very simple stuff with free (and better) alternatives, simply because certain hardware manufacturers utterly refuse to support anything other than Windows." There were older articles that touched on this subject, 2 years ago, but are others still finding themselves in the same situation as the submitter?

"[Hardware Manufacturers] seem to get very upset when somebody asks them what the register-level interface to their card is. Who could blame them? Their Windows DLL is the perfect solution under [most] circumstances.

I'm not the only one around here getting frustrated, but all before me have been defeated. It seems I am to be as well, for today I have started to learn Visual Basic.

Has anyone had any *positive* experiences trying to move a lab from proprietary to free software? Surely the government-funded researchers of the world have a responsibility to ensure that their work is free, as in freedom. However, I have found out the hard way that it's usually just not worth the effort, following such ideals. You just get frustrated by apathetic colleagues, useless product support, and the conventional wisdom that it's OK to ignore your ideals, so long as you get the experiment working. Additionally, my ordeals convince my peers that free software isn't worth the trouble."

9 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Research companies write their software in VB? No wonder there's still no cure for cancer!

    1. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      it's really simple:

      M$ (or product produced by them) is teh suxor, +5
      MS (or product producted by them) is teh suxor, +4
      Linux is teh suxor, -1
      Open Sores is teh suxor, banned for life.

      Hope this has been a learning experience for all of us.

    2. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then stick to MS bashing, that's like trying to score with a drunk fat chick. You'll be at 50 karma before you know it!

  2. Best tool for the job by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly VB is the winner here as it perfectly mimics the unpredictability of quantum mechanics!

  3. Controlling quantum computing using VB? by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like a Michael Crichton recipe for technology gone bad. I bet the fat guy in your lab gets it first.

    --

    "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

  4. Not ready for precision? by Sheetrock · · Score: 2, Funny
    There are a number of factors in Free Software that may be a cause for concern.

    First, naturally, there is the question of "Who do you sue" when things go wrong (which in itself is a statement of the issues surrounding responsibility in community development.) Commercial software vendors strive to meet a standard of reliability because they've implied with the sale of their software a warranty of fitness.

    Also, there is a question of reliability. Commercial software is designed towards a goal; Open Source is designed almost by accident. Integrating commercial products tends to work better than Free Software because of an accumulation of tolerances.

    Most importantly, using commercial software makes repeatibility in other labs a more likely possibility. A Windows setup is standard. A Linux (or whatever) setup depends on any number of factors, from the versions of the software to the distributions of the kernels. Irregardless of the general expense involved in setting up commercial software testing, this is perhaps the most important thing: your colleagues won't have a chance at duplicating your results if they don't know what you're running.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  5. You said quantum computing? by product+byproduct · · Score: 5, Funny

    [Hardware Manufacturers] seem to get very upset when somebody asks them what the register-level interface to their card is.

    You have to phrase your request nicely:

    "Give us the technical specs, or we will crack your company encryption keys with our quantum computer, access all your specs, and post them on usenet."

  6. heisenberg is rolling over in his grave by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 4, Funny

    You guys are trying to get Windows running on quantum computers? Talk about uncertainty!

  7. If it ain't broke by j1mmy · · Score: 4, Funny

    don't fix it. For fuck's sake, did you read your own submission?

    I know what I'm missing out on, in the free software world.

    Followed immediately by:

    I've wasted a *lot* of time and effort trying to implement some very simple stuff with free (and better) alternatives

    Yeah you're missing out on the struggle and pain of hacking together ad-hoc solutions to an already-solved problem.

    Way to go, buddy.