Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?
Excuse me for chiming in, but I think many places simply look
for the best performance and productivity/dollar(euro). We do use the PGI compiler,
mostly because gnu had not had a f90-f95 compiler, and partly because
of, maybe, a 10% improvement in speed.
What I find interesting is that both Fedora and Debian have similar
problems for different reasons. Debian has now stable release for
AMD64 because Sarge was released before AMD64 was really ready. This means
that we are all stuck in the beta test-site pool. It would be really nice
if Debian actually packaged up a "stable-like" version of AMD64 at the
same level as Sarge. Fedora has been moving so quickly, that they have
incorporated the same problems into a nominally stable release.
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:28:21PM +0200, Oliver Rother wrote:
> Jimmy Tang wrote:
>
> >At the risk of imposing what we do at our work place onto your work
> >flow, i find that users generally should have access to better
> >debuggers/profilers than what ships with standard gnu distros.
>
> Well, if you intend to start a flame war on the lists... but enough on that.
>
> >presumably if you are doing scientific computations, you probably have
> >access to a commercial compiler?
>
> Oh, we do. Consider an project with a timeline of many years or even
> decades of years. would you choose a non onepn source (commercial)
> compiler/debugger for that project? I'm pretty sure, you won't.
>
> >also shouldnt users be using programs like xmgrace
>
> Talking about commerical applications from your point of view - why use
> free software for data analysis when powerful commercial packages like
> IDL are available?
>
> Olli
>
> --
> Oliver Rother, Department of Space Physics,
> University of Kiel, Leibnizstr. 11/505a, D-24118 Kiel
> phone: +49 (0)431 880 4802, fax: +49 (0)431 880 3968
> rother@physik.uni-kiel.de www.ieap.uni-kiel.de/et
Reply to: