Re: Comfortable Octave usage on Windows

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM, maiky76 <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
> WMennerich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Tatsuro MATSUOKA-2 wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Please ignore my previous post.
>>>
>>> --- maiky76  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As a professional I’d rather give money to the Qtoctave guy than the
>>>> octave
>>>> guy it’s unfair but makes more sense as to me: no GUI no Octave
>>>> (whatever
>>>> the shell paint job or the speed it can achieve and I don’t really care
>>>> about the engine as long as it makes things moving forward).
>>>>
>>> Qtoctave is just a skin software which enables GUI environment.
>>> Do you want pay money to the car without engine?
>>>
>>> Of course, QtOctave is a good software which give the GUI interface to
>>> octave.
>>> However without octave, Qtoctave is mere a box which does not give any
>>> results to you.
>>>
>>> We can't put the octave and Qtoctave in the same arena.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Tatsuro
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Power up the Internet with Yahoo! Toolbar.
>>> http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Help-octave mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That might a problematic point: A lot of users might not be interested in
>> the difference between octave and its GUI. You just install a GUI (and
>> octave in the background) and you are impressed about the features of the
>> software. People might donate to that what they see and not to octave
>> which works in the background.
>>
>> Best, Wolfgang
>>
>>
> As I already said it's unfair but totally right thus my 2c for the GUY
> directly supported by the Octave dev team.

I think there's hardly a team.

> This will also perpetuate
> companies funding and as a result, in my opinion, attracting more funding.
> But if the funding policy is "pay for what you need/want" I’ll ask my
> company to donate for the GUY as for us no GUY no Octave. In the worst case
> scenario we will quietly and pragmatically fold back on Scilab (that I used
> under Linux back in 1997-2003 at uni) that will better meet what I identify
> as my company’s requirements at the expense of Matlab compatibility.
> I will then have to code Scilab, thing that anyone familiar with Matlab can
> do, and not code a GUY, thing I just cannot do, or being dragged into
> managing a subcontracted software development thing that I don’t have time
> to do.

Yeah, it's funny how everybody is busy when it comes to this topic :)

> Please don’t misunderstand me. I am NOT saying that Scilab is superior to
> Octave and Octave should compete against it. I wouldn’t post here if it was
> the case. But my company expects me to make the sensible decisions in terms
> of compromises whatever my gut feeling is. This is the daily task of just
> about any engineer.

OK, so what's the point? What would you expect the Octave developers to do?
If you're just another user who wants Octave GUI but won't contribute
to it, then join the club, there are hundreds of members, cute little
badges and special anniversary parties.
If you (or your company) will support development of QtOctave (or
other free Octave GUI), then I think that's great, and there's no need
to defend your position or apologize for being "unfair" or whatever.
Of course you can't support every free software you use - nobody
expects that. It's only logical to support what you need most.

Btw. I used Scilab in the past.

cheers

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz