Re: Proprietary software impedes the progress of knowledge?

[mike3]

On Oct 19, 3:50 pm, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > Some "proprietary" programs no doubt contain very powerful and clever
> > algorithms for stuff. One time I heard someone say that in some
> > professional proprietary animation package that "mathematical geniuses"
> > were required for its creation, which means no doubt that revolutionary
> > or very impressive matheamtics might be in there.
>
> Yes, considerable doubt.  Most likely you were listening to a salesman
> trying to sell the package.
>

So this guy's a salesman?:
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/industrial-light-and-magic-moves-to-intel-based-workstations-20020723/

"Tech, SGI tries to make the best. Perhaps they really do in the upper
echelon of the computing realm. But in the workstation area, they suck
big time.

Bufford, why is it your pompous name reflects your pompous attitude?
When a company loses one of it's major client, there *is* a lesson to
be learn -whatever way you figure it. So please get real.

Pissed off, I agree, it does take mathematical geniuses to make
Softimage or the likes. I'll bet you that within a decade or two,
we'll see some advancement in math coming out of those shops. (Why is
foreseable) - by DA pimp from MARS"

Hmph. I didn't notice he was marketing it to me...

> > But it's kept locked up by proprietary business models.
>
> Reverse-engineer it.
>

Doesn't that breach the copyright, or some other law? So it's not
legal.

> > Never mind that suck advances in mathematics could potentially do much
> > more...
>
> There may be a few clever algorithms being kept as trade secrets but I
> seriously doubt that any significant mathematical advances are.  That's
> just marketing hype.

Perhaps, or just naive maybe.