[R-lang] New York Times article

[William J Poser]

It is nice to see that article, but I was a little disappointed
in the failure of the article to explain accurately the relationship
between R and S and thereby passes over the vision of the creators
of S. It mentions S, but gives the impression that S
was just something vaguely similar.  It doesn't explain that R
began as a reimplementation of S(+), and that although S was not
open source, it had much of the flexibility of open source because
it provided a flexible language in which one could write pretty
much anything. (Also, since at least in academic environments,
S was supplied as source, which you had to compile (and compile, and
compile...)  yourself, although you couldn't freely redistribute it,
you could in fact read the source and modify it if you liked.)

Bill