The sadly sky-high cost of software

FROM: mclaren
TO: new practical microtonality list
SUBJECT: The sadly sky-high cost of software

Yesterday John Starrett (the omnitalented physicist/luthier/composer/microtonal fretless bass player/instrument builder/factotum) mentioned

"If you have Matlab, you can use Stanford's free wavelet
package Wavelab, available here:
http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~wavelab/
I used this to good effect to bring out detail in washed out areas
(hotspots) from aerial photographs for topological maps. I never tried
any musical application. Brian, have you used wavelets for sound
analysis yet? It would be interesting to see how they do, since you
can custom design your set of wavelets to the signal you want to
analyze."

Alas, John, this points up a truly grotesque aspect of today's modern world...namely, the obscenely high price of mathematical software.
At last quote, Matlab cost somewhere above $2100.00. That's not "two hundred and ten dollars," or "twenty one dollars." That's "Two thousand one hundred dollars." Mathematica costs slightly less, if memory serves around $1900.00.

Jeff Scott and I have discussed the lamentable tendency for folks to pirate software and not give the creators of the software any cash for their years of hard work. I'm still against pirating software, and people should not be reluctant to pay a reasonable amount (up to a couple of hundred bucks) for a piece of quality software.

However, there quickly comes a point when the price of software leaves the range we can call reasonable and enters into the realm of the grotesquely obscene. Both Matlab and Mathematica, with their outrageously stratospheric prices, left the "reasonable" range a long long long time ago.

This is tremendously sad. Does it occur to anyone that one of hte great problems in our modern technological society is lack of mathematical competence? Indeed, simple innumeracy and general fear of mathematics characterizes American culture -- for example. Ronald Reagan was outraged and deeply appalled when he was told that a full 50% of the students who took SATs got below average scores. :-)
(Yeah, I said I never use emoticons, but every rule has its exceptions.)

In our hi-tech modern world, the most crying need we have is for mathematically literate technically competent students. Now, you'd THINK that onbe of the best ways to encourage folks not to fear math would be to make sophisticated mathematical programs like Matlab and Mathematica as *cheap* as possible.
Instead, the message that Stephen Wolfram and his greed-crazed cronies are sending to young Americans is: "Don't even THINK about doing math on a computer. You can't even come CLOSE to affording it! KIss off math! Forget about doing it the easy way, by programming statements in Matlab or Mathematica, and by watching raphs drawn before your eyes. You must struggle and suffer with a calculator FOREVER. Mathematical software is priced out of your reach because it is only for the elite few, the rich, the wealthy microscopic upper-crust with money to burn!"

Boy, if that isn't the WRONG message to send young Americans, I don't know what is. If our society wants to discourage young folks from taking up mathematics or the sciences, pricing these mathematical programs in the stratosphere the way they are is the very best way to do it.

Incidentally, a lolt of folks have contacted me about implementing William Sethares' spectral matching ideas in music. Sadly, Bill works in Matlab...and guess what? All these earnest imaginative young musicans are priced right out of the game. They take one look at the two thousand dollar price tag on Matlab and shake their heads and walk away in disgust.
--------------
--mclaren

--- In crazy_music@y..., xed@e... wrote:
<snip>
>
> Alas, John, this points up a truly grotesque aspect of today's
modern world...namely, the obscenely high price of mathematical
software.
> At last quote, Matlab cost somewhere above $2100.00. That's not
"two hundred and ten dollars," or "twenty one dollars." That's "Two
thousand one hundred dollars." Mathematica costs slightly less, if
memory serves around $1900.00.
<snip>
> --------------
> --mclaren

Yikes! I had no idea. I got the student edition and I am still using
it. It costs $99 and is complete, no restrictions except that they
want you to be a student to use it. OK, sign up for the cheapest class
at the cheapest community college in your area and pay $99.
Mathematica has the same deal, $99 student edition for
registered students, full blown.

or......

get SciLab for Windows (server is down as I write this)
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab

or Octave for Linux
http://www.octave.org/

both of which are free Matlab clones (I prefer Octave).

More on scientific computing here

http://matlinks.net/

http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/otc/Guide/faq/nonlinear-programming-faq.ht
ml

http://www.neurotraces.com/scilab/scilab2/index.html

$2000.... sheesh.

John Starrett

Here is s huge list of scientific software, much of it for free:
http://euclid.math.fsu.edu/Science/Software.html

--- In crazy_music@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> --- In crazy_music@y..., xed@e... wrote:

> > Alas, John, this points up a truly grotesque aspect of today's
> modern world...namely, the obscenely high price of mathematical
> software.

> Yikes! I had no idea. I got the student edition and I am still
using
> it. It costs $99 and is complete, no restrictions except that they
> want you to be a student to use it. OK, sign up for the cheapest
class
> at the cheapest community college in your area and pay $99.
> Mathematica has the same deal, $99 student edition for
> registered students, full blown.

The student version of Maple has no such restriction on it. It is
crippleware which they neglected to cripple--for almost all practical
purposes, it is the same as the full version. Maple IMHO is easier to
use and to program than Mathematica and better for some applications.
Among mathematicians, algebraists and number theorists seem to prefer
Maple, and geometers Mathematica.

<snip>
> The student version of Maple has no such restriction on it. It is
> crippleware which they neglected to cripple--for almost all
practical
> purposes, it is the same as the full version. Maple IMHO is easier
to
> use and to program than Mathematica and better for some
applications.
> Among mathematicians, algebraists and number theorists seem to
prefer
> Maple, and geometers Mathematica.

Yup, and it's only $129.

http://www.maplesoft.com/