Talk:Scientific software (non free)

Scientific software (non free) an overview of proprietary scientific softwares.

However, neither the readers nor the authors have time for a complete overview, hence a weighting is done on the base of my experience between 1972 and 2008.

Even a reasonable short selection is more, than my free time in the near future, hence feel yourself free to expand the momentary existing chunk list.

prohlep (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

3 August 2008
User:Boffob removed two pieces of information instead of moving them to the see also or to similar locations.

In addition to this, you put an NPOV marker without giving a detailing of what you think, of where you need more information, etc.

Looks for me as if you were not an expert of this subject, while I do it since 1972!

You have to understand, that '''NPOV does not mean, that we have to give supporting references to those evaluations what belong to the everyday opinion of the experts of the topic. That is, we simply say that "it is part of the folklore".'''

Each portions of my sentences were double checked in my mind, if I were able to defend it even before a curt.

I teach these scientific softwares regularly at my university, I evaluate the scientific projects made by these softwares, I regularly see the impact (success or failure) of choosing a scientific software for the given project, as a teaching staff I recieved plenty of personal Points Of Views, I really know, what in this case can be considered NPOV. I am not a child in this subject.

I was very very polite not to write the whole truth, the whole experiences. As you can observe, I wrote everywhere the positive aspects of the software in question.

Let us examine just for example two random sentences from the article: ''In the 90's, Maple had a relatively cheap pricing in the frame of campus wide licensing at big technical universities. Hence it is still wide spread among the engineers and physicist.''

The both is trivially true. The both look for a non expert as if they were Personal Point Of View, some sort of Personal evaluation, and No references at all.

OK.

Do you have the prices lists from 1995? Can you give me a documentation, what the exact pricing of Maple, MuPAD and Mathematica have that time? The price was almost always a non public contract between the software houses and the particular universities! I remember the prices what we got, but except for court I have no right to disclose it!

The second sentence is even harder: probably you know the value of market information. Wiki editors have rarely the opportunity to put satisfactory market information into a GPL document.

But on the other hand, if you regularly meet or chat with teaching staffs of other universities (I do it with more than 41 universities all over the World!), then you will immediately see, that what I wrote in the article is simply a Neutral Point Of View!

Dear Boffob! Be first well informed, and edit only after it!

prohlep (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed two pieces of information? I removed two external links in accordance to the external links guidelines, in particular because those two companies have their own Wikipedia articles, so you should link to these articles and not directly to the company websites. But the POV issue is elsewhere. The article reads like an essay. Take the very first sentence: "non free scientific software are valuable complement to the free ones". That's not how to write and intro. Right away there's two value judgements: first softwares are said to be "valuable" (whatever that means) and not to stand out on their own but be a "complement" to free ones. Like S-PLUS should be considered a complement of R? The other sections are mostly essentially short summaries of 3 examples of software which already have their own articles, and those have POV expressions in them. But why pick those particular examples over other proprietary scientific softwares? I was also pretty close to put the merge tag myself (someone else seems to have done it), as I don't see why there should be three articles about scientific software. So some of them are free, others aren't: it could all be put into a single article, as this distinction is minor and does not, by itself, warrant a split.--Boffob (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)