Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 07:43, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > I may have exaggerated by saying 20 years, but I will not settle for
> > less than 10. And we need those anyway to compare results obtained by
> > one software against the other.
> This is interesting. I often hear people citing pros and cons of FLOSS
> and commercial stuff, but don't remember anyone stating such
> extravagant development gaps as 10 years or so. I'd like to hear
> opinions of others who have also used those Cplex Maple, and whatever
> else you may have in mind. This however brings to mind libre CAD stuff
> which truly lags behind.
People wouldn't use those programs more than the free equivalents if there
weren't some reason. Sometimes that reason is that the proprietary solution
has a larger library of extras (libs, etc.) around it that makes it easier to
quickly do something without reinventing the wheel. Sometimes the reason is
as simple as someone doesn't want to have to learn a new software package or
port all there stuff to a new software. These are hard barriers to overcome.
Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator
Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Science