On the other hand, "openness" is often considered a plus, as far as quality of software goes. Freely available source code can be examined by many people (even if you are not one of them; I usually am not). Flaws can more likely be detected and addressed. Flaws in closed-source, proprietary programs can often remain undiscovered or ignored (unintentionally or intentionally) for a long time. If you can view only the output and not the code, you are making a huge leap of faith, trusting the skills and the ethics of the software company. Sometimes this trust is warranted, sometimes it is not. You just never know for sure.
--Chris
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:19:59 -0500
>From: "Verkuilen, Jay" <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: st: clinical trials
>To: <[email protected]>
>
>Richard Williams wrote:
>
>>>Self-promotional plug: The user-written -oglm- is patterned after
>SPSS PLUM and provides most of the same capabilities, as well as a
>few unique and/or Stata-ish features. It is available from SSC. The
>support page is at http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/oglm/index.html<<<
>
>Stata's facility at extension by users is a great asset and your program is very nice. However, it's tough for my students---who are using a network install and who therefore lack permissions to install components from ssc or elsewhere easily---to get at it so I don't tend to push the add-ons too much.
>
>However, from a code standardization standpoint, Stata's openness can be... disconcerting. If I were a regulator (as opposed to an academic), I'd be cautious.
>
>Jay
>________________
>TNEF15174.rtf (2k bytes)
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
