Slashdot Mirror
GNU Octave 3.0 Released After 11 Years
Digana writes "GNU Octave is a free numerical computing environment highly compatible with the MATLAB language. After 11 years of development since version 2.0, stable version 3.0 released yesterday. This version is interesting because unlike other free or semi-free MATLAB competitors like Scilab, specific compatibility with MATLAB code is a design goal. This has manifested itself in goodies like better support for MATLAB's Handle Graphics, a syntax closer to MATLAB's own for many functions, and many functions from the sister project Octave-Forge ported to the core Octave project for an enriched functionality closer to the toolboxes provided by MATLAB. GUI development is underway, but still no JIT compiling, which is a show-stopper for Octave newbies coming from MATLAB with unvectorized code."
But it was under development the whole time.
I know some people might disagree with me, but I'm beginning to think some open source projects would benefit from using a year for the public version number:
Octave 2008 (3.0.x)
Thunderbird 2006 (2.0.x)
Firefox 2008 (3.0.x)
FreeBSD 2006 (6.0)
FreeBSD 2008 (7.0)
PostgreSQL 2006 (8.1)
PostgreSQL 2007 (8.2)
PostgreSQL 2008 (8.3)
While internally, the product could use the same version scheme it did before, I think many open source projects are far too anal about version numbers. The stubborn refusal to bump up the "big" version field doesn't help public image because if it never moves up people think the project is dead.
The only version number that matters is the build number and repository version, the rest is marketing. Granted the year scheme isn't perfect in the early stages of a product when functionality is drastically changing every 3 months, but on mature products, I think we could all really benefit from number schemes that use the year the product was release.
> Define not "not treating customers well."
.x.x upgrades for more than a thousand US dollars a year), I received several of the usual reminders to renew, followed by a very strange email:
OK, I'll define it for you.
I have been a Matlab user since my first graduate classes in control systems in the early nineties, when it ran on old PCs in our controls labs and didn't have the current integrated GUI. It was a revelation to be able to perform matrix and control system analyses in such a simple way, with the many built-in functions (lsim, step, bode, margin, etc.) There was nothing else like it and it taught me a lot.
In my subsequent work as a controls engineer in the astronomy field, I have used Matlab consistently for many years, occasionally requesting technical support - as you mention - and normally getting a good response. I have downloaded free evaluations of new toolboxes and sometimes we have followed up with a purchase, if the product is worth it. We use Simulink a lot for design, and this is also a really good tool.
Over the last two years or so, Matlab - the company - has been getting more unfriendly. When I decided not to renew my ongoing 'maintenance' package with them, after I saw we were getting poor value for money per year (a few
"September 25, 2006
Dear Mr. (Name Deleted):
(Company Name Deleted) is a valued customer of The MathWorks, Inc. and we appreciate your business. As you are probably aware from reading press and industry reports, software license compliance remains a challenge for the computer software industry. Like many of our peer companies, The MathWorks is implementing a license compliance audit process and has engaged an independent third-party auditing firm to assist us in performing this work.
This letter does not indicate that your company has been selected for an audit, but rather, serves as a general announcement of the program. While we are in the planning stages of the program, we wanted to take the opportunity to inform you of this activity. We realize it is very important to answer any questions you may have about the program and we want to work hard to eliminate any surprise if your company does get selected for review.
As we move forward with our program, we will begin to select various customers to conduct compliance audits pursuant to the terms of our software licensing agreement. If your company is selected, you will be notified in advance by a representative of The MathWorks. Our auditors will then contact your company to discuss the audit timing and procedures, and request documents to help make the process run as efficiently as possible.
The procedures our auditors will follow are designed to validate software licenses deployed and measure deployment against historical records. We understand that you are busy and every step will be taken to minimize the impact to your daily operations during the process.
If you have questions about your current usage of MathWorks products, please do not hesitate to contact the Installation and Licensing Team by e-mailing: support@mathworks.com
We value our relationship with your organization and look forward to your support.
Sincerely,
The MathWorks Licensing Compliance Team
To update your address, send e-mail to: service@mathworks.com
The MathWorks, Inc. - 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760 - 508-647-7000"
I never heard more about this, but it looked suspiciously like applying a bit of pressure - 'if you don't want a visit - or the possibility of one - from our licensing compliance goons, why not just cough up that maintenance fee'. I mean, if piracy and so on is such an issue, then check out every single customer, irrespective of their maintenance status. What have you got to hide, eh?
What finally pissed me off was when I wanted to download a trial of a toolbox I was interested in purchasing. Here is the friendly reply:
"(Name Deleted),
Here is a quote to add the (Toolb
Most Linux or BSD users, who happen to be using a GUI, will already have X11 running, and will therefore have a much easier time running Matlab off our Unix servers. There is certainly no problem running an X server in MacOS, nor is there a problem running it in Windows -- but these systems are not being marketed to people who have the technical skill to set that up. Not to start a flame war, but Apple just isn't trying to attract users who are aware of X11, Unix terminals, programming, etc. If anything, Apple has tried as hard as possible to remove the "nerdiness" from computing, and present there systems as intuitive, simple, straightforward computers that any idiot with no computing skills whatsoever can figure out how to use. That's fine, but when it comes to doing something that doesn't fit into the desktop computer model -- running a program on a server, and having its GUI rendered on your PC does not fit into the desktop model, at least not as Apple has implemented it -- they are not marketing to people who are comfortable, knowledgeable, or appreciative of such things. You don't have to be their target market to use Apple systems, but you have to be aware of what their target market is, and that the overwhelming majority of Apple users have no interest in anything beyond the desktop metaphor that Apple has created.
It is necessary for me to stress that I am not criticizing Apple or its users; I am criticizing my university and the Mathworks company, for creating an environment where only people who are involved in computing can access Matlab outside of our computer labs. My point is that, because of the terms of Mathworks' site license, the software must be on a specific number of university owned systems, and that while there is nothing stopping Apple or Microsoft users from accessing that software, the majority are not knowledgeable enough to do that. The university doesn't do much to educate or encourage students to set up X servers and run Matlab/Mathematica/Maple on our servers (can't say I blame them; the increased network and server load would probably bring everything to a grinding halt), and most students who use this software aren't even aware that they can access it in that manner anyway.
Palm trees and 8
Each of these, to me, seem like reasonable solutions— if it's a major-version update, I'd have to pay for it anyway... and if it's just a recompiled version of the product I already have, it should be free to current users. It turns out, however, that there was a third possibility, which is what Mathworks chose:
3. Release a new minor-version Universal Binary update, and then make all current customers buy a new full-price license in order to get it.
So, in order to run Matlab on an Intel-based Mac, current PowerPC license holders have to re-purchase their expensive software from scratch. No upgrade path, no nothing— just a nice, loud, "screw you" from Mathworks to their users. And it's not like we could just use our PowerPC verisons under Rosetta- there was a workaround, but it involved disabling all of the graphing/visualization features. Basically, it was a "pay for a full new license or don't use Matlab on your new computer" kind of thing.
I dunno, maybe it's not that big of a deal, but it still felt pretty crappy. From a customer service standpoint, it wasn't exactly a master-stroke- it wouldn't have really cost them anything just to let current license-holders have an Intel-compatible copy of the software they'd already paid for...
``But this project kind of supports the idea that open source can't really innovate, only follow (sometimes far) behind what proprietary companies invent.''
I don't know how _one_ open source project copying a proprietary project is supposed to support the idea that open source as a whole can't really innovate. Reasoning that way is completely bogus.
``It would have been really interesting to see what some of the open source folks could do if their goal was to surpass MATLAB instead of be an almost-free version that's almost as good as something that people almost like to use.''
I agree with you, and a lot of open source development does exactly that. Or implements things that there is no proprietary software for. But Octave, like a lot of other GNU software, has a different goal, apparently: allowing users to take their MATLAB code and run it using only Free software. That's a worthwhile goal, too. Although it's not something I'm personally interested in - and, apparently, not something many people are interested in at all, or progress would be quicker (either in Octave or in a sister project fueled by developers who resent Octave's slow progress).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.