From: Etienne G. <et...@an...> - 2001-05-24 17:53:52
|
Hello From: "Matthew W. Roberts" <ma...@ne...> # > Wow! You exist! Working on Octave I know can be very # > disheartening. Few people join in and collaborate on anything. # > Oh, well. # Well, it's not so much that I'm disheartened. My Committee chair is # retiring in December and I'm trying to get my Dissertation cranked # out by then. # I've been forced to use Matlab, unfortunately, in my research # because of some of Octave's limitations with structures (can't save # them, can't have arrays of structures). I was considering trying to # finish up `in absentia', but then I found out how much it would cost # to get a licensed version of Matlab. Eeek! Since then I've been # racking my brain trying to figure out a way to start a company based # on Octave. From what I've seen with Eazel, Corel Linux, Stormix, et # al, I'm not sure an open source company can survive. What about charging some fee for installing and showing the how to use octave to matlab-addicts (labs, universities). Maybe together w/ maintainance, technical assistance, consulting (for specialized numerical needs). Your fee would easily beat matlab's bid and you could contribute a fixed % to octave. I would be tempted by this kind I scheme. # Thanks for your comments. Some specific replies: # > 2) ... Support for independent packaging is not appropriate at # > the moment since the toolboxes are mostly tiny (except signal and # > image) and enthusiasm is low. But dependencies between functions should be checked. # I agree. However, we should still set up the directory structure # with packaging in mind. # > How about we put a hard limit of 5 Mb total main tree size before # > we worry about separate packaging? # Sounds good to me. # > 6) Functions should not require patched versions of Octave or # > gnuplot to run. # Definitely agree. # I like your directory structure. The main tree is for additions to # the standard octave distribution, right? # -- # Matthew W. Roberts Cheers, Etienne |