[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-glpk] interfaces and platforms

From: Michael Hennebry
Subject: Re: [Help-glpk] interfaces and platforms
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:55:21 -0600 (CST)
User-agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20)

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Harley wrote:

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.

My suspicion is that what is needed is not a more reliable source.
What is needed is probably a more respected source.
Quite possibly anything with wiki in the name is unacceptable.

If reliability really is the issue, what is the measure of reliablilty?

By any chance, would the information desired be in
the documentation that comes in the GLPK tarball?

I definitely would recommend reading the wikibook for GLPK as it does contain answers to your questions (


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( ) 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 <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:


    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.

Michael   address@hidden
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword."  --  Lily

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]