I think that's a bad argument. While it may be a valid argument for the one time project, it is not a valid argument when you are talking about science and building up a vast source of tools that can be used by all. I agree mathematica is nice, and convenient, and I don't have a problem with paying for the convenience. The problem is that it is proprietary software and there are arguments against that in general.
As for the whoever says I should write my papers in Word... that's ludicrous. i'd spend the rest of my years clicking buttons in the equation editor, I couldn't put my stuff on xxx.lanl.gov, and I'd be looked at as a fool. Everyone in high energy physics uses unix basically. CERN supports gcc and g77. They wrote paw, it's under a modified GPL... you try and break out SigmaPlot and excel and you'll get laughed out of Geneva.
I'm a physicist. I've used Mathematica. I think it's a great program.... But, I don't like Wolfram's politics. He and CalTech had their battle back in the day about the engine that makes symbolic math possible. Wolfram won, now he's running the big proprietary business.
Are there any nice Free or Open Source alternatives. I know that maple and matlab do this stuff to some extent, but I don't know their licenses. Seems like there should be a project. That software is expensive as crap.
Right on.
I was on that experiment and NO! we never claimed discovery. The fact that it's 2.6 sigma effect is a stastical statement and it's still valid.
Slashdot Mirror
Choosing a hammer for its smell.
... that's ludicrous. i'd spend the rest of my years clicking buttons in the equation editor, I couldn't put my stuff on xxx.lanl.gov, and I'd be looked at as a fool. Everyone in high energy physics uses unix basically. CERN supports gcc and g77. They wrote paw, it's under a modified GPL... you try and break out SigmaPlot and excel and you'll get laughed out of Geneva.
I think that's a bad argument. While it may be a valid argument for the one time project, it is not a valid argument when you are talking about science and building up a vast source of tools that can be used by all. I agree mathematica is nice, and convenient, and I don't have a problem with paying for the convenience. The problem is that it is proprietary software and there are arguments against that in general.
As for the whoever says I should write my papers in Word
I'm a physicist. I've used Mathematica. I think it's a great program.... But, I don't like Wolfram's politics. He and CalTech had their battle back in the day about the engine that makes symbolic math possible. Wolfram won, now he's running the big proprietary business.
Are there any nice Free or Open Source alternatives. I know that maple and matlab do this stuff to some extent, but I don't know their licenses. Seems like there should be a project. That software is expensive as crap.
Right on. I was on that experiment and NO! we never claimed discovery. The fact that it's 2.6 sigma effect is a stastical statement and it's still valid.