Talk:Comparison of statistical packages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] External URLs
Most other software lists and comparisons do not have external URLs for every package. I think they should be removed from this article as well. --Karnesky 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GLM
Why is GLM listed in both ANOVA and regression? --Karnesky 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- General linear model and Generalized linear model are both abbreviated GLM. Den fjättrade ankan 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Procedure Comparisons
It seems pointless, and cumbersome, to list different capabilities for each package, like ANOVA, Regression, etc. First of all, there are just TONS of them: many, many more than could be listed in such a form. This makes the current listing utterly incomplete, and therefore very misleading. There are already links to each package's website, where such details are given. I'm for deleting these tables altogether. What are the thoughts out there? Ww.ellis 15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree--other software comparisons have complicated sets of features. What features do you think are missing? Why don't you just add them? --Karnesky 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree too, I think the tables are useful. Den fjättrade ankan 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree, these kind of tables are misleading from the early beginning, out of WP scope, always outdated, non NPOV by nature, I'm for deleting the whole entry. Jean R. Lobry 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree for now. The sheer principle of the table is to give an overview of the general capability and orientation of the statistics package, which partially fails, as you point out. But in order to gain an overview over the statistics packages, this kind of table is the only way to start to get a more balanced overview. The table should - in future - be splitup according to the table headers main sections, and the sub-headers provided in separate tables. It's unavoidable that comparing proprietary and open source software involves a kind of original research, so either move the table to this discussion page, or keep. Said: Rursus 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free
Lets change all the instances of "Free" in the Cost columns to "Gratis", least anyone become confused with the licensing terms. Ogranut 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree. This page has one important role - it shows which software is better. You pay more, you get more. "Free" is a simple term. Let's stick to it. Everybody understands "Free".
By the way, i haven't seen JMulti in the list... unfortunately i'm not competent enough to add it.. ;) R.B.
- Nope, there's free, and there's gratis. "Gratis" means there's a zero-bucks version for download somewhere - gratis directs towards low-cost-custormers. Free means the source code is open for everyone to share, reprogram and redistribute - free directs towards finger-itching programmers that want to improve the program. Mostly free code can be achieved in a gratis version. See the preachings of our most revered prophet R. M. Stallman of the Emacs Church in Free Software Definition. Said: Rursus 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Gratis and Free mean the same things. Check the dictionary. Graemec2 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Red/Green should be avoided
In the cost field, coloring open source cells green and non-open source cells red should be avoided because they correlate to good and bad endorsements (green means go, red means stop). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 (talk • contribs)
- Rather than "open source," which places a value judgment on particular set of licenses, why don't we say "source available?" Having source code available is a feature & a differentiator (particularly for mathematical software). I don't see how you can argue that we shouldn't color code this feature, but should color-code platform support or a particular ANOVA method. --Karnesky 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Red means stop, or missing, or broken by a general tabular convention found at open source tables. Maybe cyan or blue for non-gratis software. It indicates the coolness (coldness?) of the market. Said: Rursus 09:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- This page does not exist in a vacuum. There are many other pages with these kind of tables & they've all used red for "no" as opposed to anything else. Perhaps a new set of templates can be made for "free/open source" vs. "proprietary" (similar to the free (gratis)/nonfree templates). However, I think this page should follow conventions and consensus set forth by other pages. This is currently that green and red aren't being used to give value judgments. --Karnesky 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The same complaint was voiced at Talk:Comparison_of_computer_algebra_systems. JonMcLoone (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- And, copying from that page: We had this discussion at Template talk:Yes. The consensus was that green means yes & red means no & that we aren't prescribing a value judgment. The 'but yes' and 'but no' templates were deleted for this very reason. --Karnesky (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Asterisks
There are asterisks after some program's prices but there isn't an explanation for them anywhere.
[edit] Where is MATLAB ?
[edit] BSD on the OS list
Having BSD on the list of supported platforms makes this look out of touch. Might as well have DOS amd OS/2. I suggest we cut the column. Wordsoup (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Open source vs proprietary
Anyone understand why Dataplot and SalStat are listed as "open source", while their license is listed as proprietary, and hence not "open source". -ChristopherM (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
