On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vincent Delecroix >> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> thought was that Sage is a math software, open source, with the aim of >>> being a viable alternative to Ma*. There was no mention of a cloud >>> which is just the incompatible with the open source project (as the >>> FSF defines it). >> >> Why do you think that the existence of "a cloud" that provides an >> additional way to use Sage is compatible with Sage being an open >> source project? To me that's no different than claiming that the >> existence of websites running on servers running Linux is incompatible >> with Linux being an open source project. >> >>> My very personal opinion is that the cloud is a bad >>> way of making Sage popular: it makes the users dependent of a service. >> >> If good = "not dependent" and bad = "dependent", then indeed it is >> bad. I do not define good and bad that way. I'm more concerned with >> providing valuable services to people, making it easier for people to >> get work done, and providing ways to collaborate. I want to grow the >> community of users of open source math software, and I'm probably not >> the first person to realize that a website-based approach is a >> powerful tool for addressing some of these goals. >> >>> Up to now, I learned a lot with Sage and I hope that I contributed >>> equivalently on teaching with it, going to Sage days, contributing >>> with my code, etc. Sage was for me part of the public domain. If the >>> cloud really becomes the main way of using Sage it will be for me like >>> a dispossession. The cloud implies >>> - the obligation of using the cloud to share code >>> - no control on the execution of the softwares >>> - no direct access to the source code >>> - no way to use your own editor >> >> These are all valid concerns for anybody choosing whether or not to >> use Sage (or anything else) via any computer that isn't their own >> personal computer. Even if a large number of people were to someday >> use Sage via the cloud, this doesn't mean that everybody does. You >> can -- and will *always* be able to -- use Sage in any way you want >> (compatible with the GPL). If many more people are using Sage (in >> any way, cloud or not), then the number of contributions to Sage >> itself will increase, the quality of Sage goes up, getting support for >> Sage development gets easier, etc., which will mean that your personal >> cloud-free use of Sage will be improved. Everybody wins in the Sage >> community wins. User attention is a zero-sum game (unless there are >> new markets), so somebody has to loose in this scenario--it isn't us >> Sage users -- it's the Ma*'s. > > I actually don't think it's a zero-sum game; I'm hopeful Sage can also > be useful to people who otherwise wouldn't even use a computer to do > mathematics, and convenient/helpful enough for people to use computers > for this kind of work even more. In other words, making the total pie > bigger. Being a viable alternative to the Ma*s is at least as > important to those who don't/can't have access to them as to those who > do.
I view it the same way. > > It's worth pointing out that there is a risk here for "cloud-free" > Sage. What you haven't done is clearly outline what part of the cloud > product will be open and what parts won't be. At the one extreme, all > the source, configuration, etc. is open and the value-add of the > sagemath.com is a professionally-administered hosting with lots of > hardware and support (which, yes, anyone could clone and try to > compete with, though the "original" that devotes its profits to the > improvement of Sage should attract the best/most devoted employees > and, consequently, offer the best support). At the other end is a very > closed system where bug-fixes and improvements to core Sage itself are > withheld from the public version (which could be legal according to > the GPL, if you're just distributing results, not code). My > understanding is that the sagemath cloud won't live at either of these > extremes, but I would consider it sad if peripheral things like the UI > or better 3d graphics and interacts never made it out to the open > source project. > > There's also the concern of lock-in. Ideally, a notebook could be > created on the cloud, downloaded and run in a "cloud-free" way (say, > on an airplane w/o internet, or on your department's latest hardware > dedicated to your research, or over data to sensitive to trust to the > cloud), then even re-uploaded. Delineating a concrete goal here would > be good. Cloud.sage now supports the IPython notebook, which has zero lock-in. You can run exactly the same notebook locally, without internet access (assuming of course that you have all the dependencies installed). Before sage.cloud and ipython notebook a few years ago, even though I really liked the Sage notebook, it was only used for Sage, and so the community didn't grow beyond it. I tried to disentangle it (with William's help), but it's really really hard to build a thriving community. IPython, in the meantime, has succeeded in building a large community around the IPython notebook, and so it is now my preferred notebook, since there is no lock-in into a particular product and people use it in various settings, including now the cloud.sage. So I really like sage.cloud, after I realized that it has everything I need for my work (compilers, vim, git, ipython notebook, and I can easily compile the rest myself). >From my perspective, Sage is just another software stack, that I could use >there (I don't happen to be using it, but I could). I like that I setup my development there, then leave one computer, start another computer and I can continue exactly where I left off, in the same terminal. Especially if you have to download & compile tons of stuff, this *really* saves time for me. Ondrej > > If the cloud offering becomes diverges too much or develops too many > special features, and especially if the bulk of development happens in > un-released code, the cloud-free parallel will languish. I don't think > this will happen, and it won't if it's concisely avoided, but it is a > risk with this kind of project. > >> Today there are n ways to use Sage. I hope tomorrow there will be n+1 >> ways to use Sage. If anybody out there can think of any new ways of >> making any form of open source math software more accessible, I think >> we should all strongly encourage them. >> >>> Moreover, using some energy to develop the cloud really prevents from >>> having other important Sage projects going on. >> >> I don't know how to respond to this, since there are a lot of implicit >> assumptions that you're making to deduce some conclusion. It's like >> saying "I'm assuming a bunch of things I don't mention are true. >> Hence [some statement]." > > The sagemath cloud *is* a significant investment of resources > (especially your time and energy) that could be spent elsewhere. > Whether that's worth it is, ultimately, your call for your own > personal investment (though it does have a network effect). > > Personally, I am supportive of the effort, for the reasons you give > below. I've had longer to think about this than most. > > I think to grow from 10,000 to 100,000 and 1,000,000 users (think high > school and college students, not just mathematicians) we need to have > a scalable, zero-hassle notebook, preferably with online development > capabilities. Though the (average) per-user cost of this system should > be relatively low, the aggregate cost is likely too high to be > supported by volunteers (system administration is not as > "embarrassingly parallel" as producing code) or simply absorbed in the > operating costs of, say, the UW math department. A host of > universities/departments/professors each running their own notebook > server is an alternative model, but I don't think that's feasible > (it's almost what we have now) and has a lot of drawbacks. > > A foundation that supports a product, brings in revenue, and pays > developers does not actually have to be for-profit, though setting up > and administering a non-profit comes with many more regulations. > > Another thing to keep in mind is that official support of this kind is > not about charging people for something we could offer for (nearly) > free--it also provides a mechanism for people who want to support Sage > to do so in a "standard" way. Millions of dollars are spent each year > on software licenses, and even if someone wanted to use part of their > budget for Sage instead you can't "just donate" to a non-profit out of > these budgets without major accounting hassle, if at all. Also, it > provides a mechanism to be reimbursed for the actual expenses of > power-users (and incentive for them to be aware of/conserve resources > if cost is an issue), plus maybe a little to support many non-power > users. > >> Sometimes it is a good idea to invest in new directions that have a >> potentially big payoff. The odds are probably at best 1 in a 100, but >> in the long run https://cloud.sagemath.com could provide substantial >> funding that will increase the potential for other important open >> source math software projects to happen. I can think of numerous >> skilled professional software engineers with math Ph.D.'s who would >> love to work fulltime on core Sage development work if there were any >> way they could be paid a salary that is comparable to what they get >> working in industry. Unfortunately, without the level of support that >> would come from a successful company, I see no way that we'll have >> even one single fulltime professional working on Sage longterm. I >> don't think Sage *needs* such development effort, but I think we can >> all agree that Sage would benefit from it. >> >> I also think that professional customer support, which is something >> that by definition only a company can provide, should be viewed as a >> central part of the mission statement of Sage: "provide a viable ... >> alternative to Mathematica, Maple...". Paid support is probably not >> important for anybody reading this message -- we're a few thousand >> core highly technical developers -- but its existence is critical to >> any "viable alternative" when you grow way beyond 10,000 users. As >> an example, R -- which is the only open source math software to go >> truly mainstream -- has good commercial support available. >> >>> I am not an extremly active developer of Sage nor actively involved in >>> Sage politics. Nevertheless, I am a Sage enthousiasts and try to >>> spread it as much as I can. Fundings is definitely an important >>> problem. Could somebdoy help me on the following two questions >>> - how is decided where the money of the Sage fundation goes ? >> >> I decide often in consultation with other Sage developers. The bulk >> of contributions to the Sage Foundation are earmarked for a specific >> purpose, e.g., "fund this workshop" or "fund the Jaap Spies Sage >> Development Prize this year". The Sage Foundation budget is a small >> proportion of the total funding that has been used for Sage >> development. The bulk of Sage funding has been by the NSF (and other >> institutes, in both the US and Europe) in the form of workshops and >> some summer support (but always in combination with some other >> research objective). >> >>> - is there a public access to the incomes and outcomes of the Sage >>> fundation ? >> >> No. >> >>> From my french viewpoint Sage is spreading. From this year Ma* are not >>> anymore allowed for the main teachers recruitment examination and Sage >>> is precisely one of the alternative. This implies that many >>> universities in France will switch from Ma* to Sage. This goes >>> slowly... but safely. >> >> I'm very happy to hear about this, and everything I've seen strongly >> suggests that Sage is doing well in France. That said, I have to >> face the unfortunate reality that judging by website visit and >> download numbers, the Sage project is simply not growing much overall >> in usage. >> >>>>> I do not want to start a flame or attack anyone, and i have absolutely no >>>>> problem with the fact that a company host a cloud running Sage (and even >>>>> donate some income to Sage). >>>> >>>> A company doesn't host a cloud running Sage, and there is no income. >>>> That said, after getting funding in various ways over 8 years for this >>>> project, I think the only hope Sage has of breaking into mainstream >>>> usage is with such a commercial component. This is why I hope to >>>> create such an entity when there is appropriate technology and a >>>> business model. >>> >>> Ok. But that is a personnal point of vue. I thought that Sage was the >>> project of 400 developers and thousands of users... >> >> I have a different perspective. For the first year it was the project >> of one developer and one user: me; but a project that is built on top >> of the work of hundreds of other developers. For the second year, it >> was the product of 3 developers and 3 users (me, David Kohel, and >> David Joyner). For the third year, there were a few more >> developers/users. Etc. Now I'm happy that there are around 400 >> developers listed on trac. And I'm happy to have set things up so >> that we all share the copyright on Sage, and no individual pr company >> can automatically control the future of the Sage program (e.g., there >> can never be a dual-licensed closed source version). >> >> But *any* company who wants to can, at any time, take Sage the program >> and use it as a backend for a website. And that website could have >> millions of users. If Google wanted to have millions of people doing >> complicated calculations you type in the search bar get evaluated >> using Sage, they could, without paying any of us 400+ developers one >> penny. That's completely legal, and in no way circumvents the GPL or >> Sage being an open source project. And by using the GPL, we >> developers are making a legal statement that we understand and support >> this. >> >> If you replace "Sage" by "Linux" in the above paragraph, and >> "millions" by "billions", you have what is really happening every day. >> >> Also, I would like you to consider many of your concerns above with >> "Sage" replaced by "Linux". Is it so bad that billions of people are >> using websites that are backed by the GPL'd program "Linux"? No -- >> this is one of the reasons that Linux (at least at the server at >> smartphone level) gets so much development support. >> >> -- William >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sage-devel" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
