why not cite wolfram's own pages for lack of support for Solaris? If it is so easy for others to build and maintain their software, why they lack Solaris support? I remember such a posting at the group.
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > In the Wikipedia entry for sage, one of the tags has been added by someone: > > "This article's section called "Description" does not cite any > references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding > citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged > and removed. (April 2009)" > > > I can see that in particular, the bit which says: > > "A free distribution of the world's most widely used open source > mathematical software that builds easily from source." > > could (even should) be challenged. Is there any reference which can show > that? > > > If one looks at the Mathematica entry, it's clear that 'JonMcLoone' (who > is employed by Wolfram Research), spends a *lot* of time tidying the > article up - removing any negative comments! But the Mathematica entry > does look a lot better than the Sage one. The Mathematica entry cites 40 > references - the sage one only 4. > > I've updated the history a bit, from HISTORY.txt. Adding more history > entries, and what features were added, would no doubt give the > impression the project is more active than what it appears from the > Wikipedia entry. > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
