[R] Pros and Cons of R

[Patrick Connolly]

On Tue, 27-May-2008 at 06:17AM -0700, DavidM.UK wrote:

|> 

|> I don't think it's an issue with Linux functionality at all, it's a
|> case of having your linux machine configured correctly -- which
|> isn't a straight forward issue.

Since configuration has a direct bearing on functionality, we're
really saying the same thing.  I don't fancy splitting that hair for
this discussion.

|> 
|> On XP I load R and like you point out I'd do:
|> >install.packages("my package")
|> And great my library is installed and ready to use.
|> 
|> Comparatively the number of times I've had that fail on Linux
|> systems is high. Of course that depends on what flavour of Linux

Right.  The only time I had a problem was when the tgz file was not
unpacked correctly -- no reflection on the quality of the configuration
script.  I've managed to get it all working on Fedora, CentOS and on
Mepis and I'm not particularly skilled in setting up Linux.  


|> you have installed and more... but in fairness it's an indicator
|> that R is more difficult to install than some of it's commercial
|> competitors to install on Linux. For R, I can't honestly say I know

Software that doesn't have the flexibility that R has certainly can be
easy to set up.  Even so, I'll never get Genstat to install on Linux.

[....]

-- 
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.   
   ___    Patrick Connolly   
 {~._.~}          		 Great minds discuss ideas    
 _( Y )_  	  	        Middle minds discuss events 
(:_~*~_:) 	       		 Small minds discuss people  
 (_)-(_)  	                           ..... Anon
	  
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.