Re: Comfortable Octave usage on Windows

[maiky76]

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. 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.
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. 

Tatsuro MATSUOKA: 
Thanks so much for the efforts you make about Octave for Windows.
Unfortunately (for Octave) I haven’t the knowledge to help coding, I already
have hobbies and my company is about acoustics not software development.
Sometimes even saving money just can’t balance hassles and this is the core
issue for Octave. I am French living in China working for a New Zealand
company; believe me I know what “lost in translation” is all about…    

Mickael Lefebvre, MEng, MSc.
Acoustic team leader    

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Comfortable-Octave-usage-on-Windows-tp23256431p23335750.html
Sent from the Octave - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.