I think Robbie's comments were in response to the 'more
reliable' part of your email. Robbie has worked very hard on the
wikibook for GLPK and it is an excellent reference and it is not
wikipedia as it has been created by the GLPK users but also has
not been formally peer reviewed.
Given that many participants on this list do not have English as
their first language, we need to be careful about interpreting the
intentions of the writer. I don't believe that Robbie's comments
are angry just as I believe that there may have been a
misunderstanding in the original email about the difference
between wikipedia (not much standing in the academic world) and
the GLPK wikibook that has been put together by the users of GLPK.
I definitely would recommend reading the wikibook for GLPK as it
does contain answers to your questions
(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GLPK).
Regards,
Harley Mackenzie
On 8/02/12 5:47 AM, name name wrote:
Let me explain and answer to your questions:
First, I have registed to the mailing list, second, I'm master
student and I'm writing my master thesis where I use GLPK in a
OPEN SOURCE project( https://bitbucket.org/pschaus/scampi/wiki/Home
) for this reason I would like to have a source differant from
wikipedia.
I dont see why you are so angry. Whot I do is using GLPK and
writing in my thesis.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Robbie
Morrison <address@hidden>
wrote:
Hello
First up, you should register if you wish to post to
this list. That means the maintainer does not need to
waste his time with cross-posting.
Just curious as to why you think the GLPK wikibook is
not reliable? Our community (myself included) invest a
fair bit effort in keeping it correct and current. Can
you point to any mistakes, for example?
If you need to cite peer-reviewed literature for some
reason, then you're pretty much outa luck.
You need to remember that GLPK is an open source
project. We all take pride in producing good work and
providing good support. So whilst the controls on
quality are not formal, as happens in scientific
publishing, they are, nonetheless, active and vibrant.
Maybe you could talk to your boss or supervisor and
suggest that, in this case, well maintained open source
documentation can be of high standard and should not be
unceremoniously dismissed. Conversely, my experiences
with scientific peer-review have left me underwhelmed.
In addition, much of the academic programming I've seen
is just awful in relation to software engineering and
good practice. In contrast, GLPK is coded to a very
high standard and is widely tested.
HTH, Robbie
------------------------------------------------------------
To: help-glpk <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Help-glpk] interfaces and platforms
From: name name <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:49:15 +0100
------------------------------------------------------------
---
Robbie Morrison
PhD student -- policy-oriented energy system simulation
Institute for Energy Engineering (IET)
Technical University of Berlin (TU-Berlin), Germany
University email (redirected) : address@hidden
Webmail (preferred) : address@hidden
[from Webmail client]
_______________________________________________
Help-glpk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Harley Mackenzie ABN: 36 348 783 012
HARD Software Web: www.hardsoftware.com
PO BOX 8004 Tel: +61 3 5222 3435
Newtown 3220, Australia Email: address@hidden
------------------------------------------------------------------
|