Talk:PSPP

So it seems that an article with this title was previously AfDed, on the grounds that no third party had ever mentioned it. A quick google shows this assertion to be false. To avoid doubt, however, I've included links to those 3rd parties which have published things related to PSPP. It makes the reading somewhat heavy going, but with what can one do ....? Ogranut (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This new article definitely satisfies the major substantive worry in the previous AfD, the lack of external recognition, so I have denied the speedy deletion request. If somebody's dead set on deleting this, then the next steps would be a discussion here, followed optionally by an AfD if consensus cannot be reached. William Pietri (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

name
i found this online. worth including?:

''What does PSPP stand for? PSPP does not have any official acronymic expansion. But they're easy to come up with. For example, Perfect Statistics Professionally Presented. Probabilities Sometimes Prevent Problems. People Should Prefer PSPP. '' --Hypo Mix (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)--

Somebody move the French Tutorial to the French Wikipedia...
as it is useless here! Regards, Matt. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ethical" is not the right word...
In the following paragraph, note the use of the phrase "ethical problems": "The PSPP project (originally called "Fiasco") was started so as to allow computer users to avoid the ethical problems imposed by SPSS. Under the terms of use of SPSS, not only are users forbidden from copying or modifying the program, but they may only use the software for a limited period of time."

I added a really? tag to the word "ethical" but it was reverted, so maybe I shall explain what my problem is with the word usage here: the fact that the author of a free/open source software doesn't like the licensing terms of proprietary software does *not* make said terms an "ethical problem". At most, they are merely a "disadvantage" or an "inconvenience". That "ethical problems" was used is particularly more troubling when the fact that "users forbidden from copying or modifying the program" is used as an example... by a free/open source developer of a competing app. I think this violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 201.251.248.195 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Any normal person would agree that deliberately creating inconveniences or disadvantages for all and sundry is unethical behavior. Quokly (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

-from the official page at http://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/ on the list of features "No unethical “end user license agreements”." copying or modifying is something covered by most EULAs so I think it is safe to say that ethical is exactly the right choice of words. 69.127.127.64 (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More realistic description of the software capabilities
After reading the page I was quite excited, downloaded the software, and tried it out. I was mostly disappointed, espcially in its limited range of statitical functions and lack of any graphical representation. I think the web page misrepresents the actual capability of the software by inferring that it is an 'alternative' to SPSS and has 'extensive facilities'. It is not - it simply does not have the same functionality as the big players. I suggest that the text needs to be more modest about the capabilities. It's a great programme, and need not create expectations that cannot be met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mango bush (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a list of the actual software capabilities apparent in the latest version, and have listed those on the page. Words like 'extensive' were softened too.Mango bush (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the claim that PSPP is 'functionally identical to SPSS', since it is misrepresenting its capabilities. Can someone think of more factual way to express the idea?Mango bush (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this: 'which might with time become functionally identical to SPSS'. That better captures the apparent intent of the developers, without misrepresenting what it can currently do.Mango bush (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It does actually do Factor Analysis
The latest versions certainly do Factor Analysis. Also Non-parametrics include Kruskall-Wallis, Friedman and others. See the manual. So I've reverted that users editr which says it doesn't do it. 212.185.106.68 (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Legality
though I know a bit about intellectual property and rebuilding software under a new name, but is this really totally legal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv0isin (talk • contribs) 07:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)