In fact, I need source which is "respected source". I think it will be more respected source if the information was in the site http://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/ or http://bjoern.dapnet.de/glpk/ or in the documantation which cames with glpk or in one of those sites.
My problem if not that I dont trast those informations or I think that it is not corret but I think I would have problem if I citate those sites. On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Michael Hennebry < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Harley wrote: > > I think Robbie's comments were in response to the 'more reliable' part of >> your email. Robbie has worked very hard on the wikibook for GLPK and it is >> an excellent reference and it is not wikipedia as it has been created by >> the GLPK users but also has not been formally peer reviewed. >> >> Given that many participants on this list do not have English as their >> first language, we need to be careful about interpreting the intentions of >> the writer. I don't believe that Robbie's comments are angry just as I >> believe that there may have been a misunderstanding in the original email >> about the difference between wikipedia (not much standing in the academic >> world) and the GLPK wikibook that has been put together by the users of >> GLPK. >> > > My suspicion is that what is needed is not a more reliable source. > What is needed is probably a more respected source. > Quite possibly anything with wiki in the name is unacceptable. > > If reliability really is the issue, what is the measure of reliablilty? > > By any chance, would the information desired be in > the documentation that comes in the GLPK tarball? > > I definitely would recommend reading the wikibook for GLPK as it does >> contain answers to your questions >> (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/**GLPK<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GLPK> >> ). >> >> Regards, >> >> Harley Mackenzie >> >> On 8/02/12 5:47 AM, name name wrote: >> >>> Let me explain and answer to your questions: >>> >>> First, I have registed to the mailing list, second, I'm master student >>> and I'm writing my master thesis where I use GLPK in a OPEN SOURCE project( >>> https://bitbucket.org/pschaus/**scampi/wiki/Home<https://bitbucket.org/pschaus/scampi/wiki/Home>) >>> for this reason I would like to have a source differant from wikipedia. >>> >>> I dont see why you are so angry. Whot I do is using GLPK and writing in >>> my thesis. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Robbie Morrison <[email protected]<mailto: >>> [email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> First up, you should register if you wish to post to >>> this list. That means the maintainer does not need to >>> waste his time with cross-posting. >>> >>> Just curious as to why you think the GLPK wikibook is >>> not reliable? Our community (myself included) invest a >>> fair bit effort in keeping it correct and current. Can >>> you point to any mistakes, for example? >>> >>> If you need to cite peer-reviewed literature for some >>> reason, then you're pretty much outa luck. >>> >>> You need to remember that GLPK is an open source >>> project. We all take pride in producing good work and >>> providing good support. So whilst the controls on >>> quality are not formal, as happens in scientific >>> publishing, they are, nonetheless, active and vibrant. >>> >> > -- > Michael [email protected] > "On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class, > whom I teach not to run with scissors, > that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Help-glpk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/help-glpk<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk> >
_______________________________________________ Help-glpk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk
