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
|
