RE: [Axiom-developer] SAGE, Axiom, and usage

[Bill Page]

Gaby,

On August 23, 2006 6:08 PM you wrote:
> | > ... [symbolic computation versus computer algebra]
> | > my point is that that distinction is largely an academic
> | > exercise in ways we approach the subject matter, and NOT
> | > a really deep one (though it may be given substance).
> | 
> | I think you are wrong.  I think Steven Watt's paper
> | provides a very substantive example:
> 
> it seems we have entered the traditional phase of
> opinion-vs-proof-by-authority.  I guess, the best we can
> do is to postpone the discussion for more data.

I did not mention Steven Watt as an appeal to authority (or did
you have some other authority in mind?) but I would be glad to
continue the discussion of his paper on this subject after you
get a chance to read it. :)

> 
> [...]
> 
> | > our respective beliefs of why Axiom failed.
> | > 
> | 
> | I do not agree that Axiom has "failed". Lack of commercial
> | success should not be construed as failure in this kind of
> | research.
> 
> when, given the many times you have blamed NAG for the impact
> of its commercial failure with Axiom,

I do not blamed NAG for the commercial failure of Axiom. I am
sorry if I have somehow given you that impression. On the
contrary I think NAG and specifically Mike Dewar was extremely
generous to agree to license Axiom as open source and also
to support the idea of making Aldor available this way. The
impact of the commercial failure has been that Axiom is now
open source. From my point of view that is a positive out come.
I regret the loss of NAG's investment in the extensions made
to Axiom when it was a commercial product, but I think that was
largely due to restrictive licensing of non-Axiom components
beyond their control.

> I suspect you can just decree that these aspects of the
> project are independent and have no impact on each other.

No. I think commercial conflict of interest has had a large
negative impact on both Axiom and Aldor. However since that
time open source has been proven as a viable alternative and
we are now in the process of recovering from these earlier
mistakes.

> 
> How do you measure success?
> 

One measure of success that makes sense to me is the number
of people who actively contribute to the improvement of Axiom.
Another measure is the number of people who actually use Axiom
in their research and/or teaching. In terms of these measures
Axiom is not (yet) a failure but I believe that we could do
much better and I am disappointed with rate of change.

Regards,
Bill Page.