Alchemy is to chemistry, astrology is to astronomy, as closed-source is to open source.
Closed-source is intellectual fraud. It is the equivalent of an academic paper which has a synopsis and conclusions -- but nothing else. No honest reviewer would ever approve such tripe for publication in a refereed journal of mechanical engineering or physics or medicine...yet we, in computer science, are expected to do the equivalent. We're actually expected to take someone's word that their code does what they say it does -- even though we have a mountain of evidence stretching back to the beginning of our field that says it's NEVER been true, even when the code's written by people who are smart/experienced/honest/diligent/etc. Not even Stephen Hawking gets his papers published without showing his data/reasoning/work/etc. As it should be. So yes, my response to this is "source or GTFO". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and in this case, there is none. ---rsk -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
