[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: clinical trials

From   <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   RE: st: clinical trials
Date   Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:37:10 -0500 (EST)

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.


---- 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<<<
>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. 
>TNEF15174.rtf (2k bytes)
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index