[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Comfortable Octave usage on Windows

From: Jaroslav Hajek
Subject: Re: Comfortable Octave usage on Windows
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:31:10 +0200

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:35 AM, maiky76 <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been using Qtoctave for one month and I love it. Let me share my 2c
> experience.
> At my job I extensively use Matlab. I have been lobbying for a while to have
> more people using proper scientific software for data processing (quality
> department) to improve our own standard for production tracking. Basically
> my goal was to enable technician to process some data by themselves. I
> always had been told that Matlab was too expensive to make simple tasks such
> as standard deviation, normal distribution fitting (Excel makes people sick;
> I am talking about technicians not R&D engineers). I tried to introduce
> Octave for windows and people told me that the “Graveyard black windows”
> didn’t appeal to them and it was too complex to use it. Since I showed them
> Qtoctave, everyone is using it, liking it very much and people are modifying
> (improving) the tools I first gave them to better fit their own needs. It is
> exactly what I wanted everyone it happy and the job is better done and it’s
> only thanks to the GUI.
> To my opinion (and I share it), for what I wanted to do the GUI is not
> optional. I am too young to have used DOS as OS but I can’t help thinking
> that computers wouldn’t have been so wide spread without Windows, another
> GUI.
> Another example: Linux, it’s only since GUI based distro that main retail
> channel put it in their computer (Asus EEEPC) as a credible Windows
> alternative.
> 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).
> Now you can think whatever you want about this example: it could a case in
> point against a GUI as I am negating a large part of what octave is standing
> for but it is a different point of view.

Oh, but that's OK. If you're happy with Octave as it is and you mainly
care about a better GUI (QtOctave), then by all means, donate money to
QtOctave. Others may consider other things more important, so they
will contribute elsewhere, and we'll all benefit from each other's
contributions. Not that I need a GUI, but I'm still happy that some
are around. So, how much you're going to give?

RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic

reply via email to

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