>what I'd really like to see is some sort of certification by a trusted
>third party.
While I agree that source code should be available for all softwares used in
"mission critical situation", such as "publishing a paper", I guess bringing
a third party policing will stifle the amateurs. And there is no doubt that
most of the softwares in Biology is written by so called amateurs. The life
of any free software is determined by the number of the users as well as the
the number of "these amateurs" fiddling around with the source code.
Sufficient supply of both can tackle and compete with softwares kept alive
by pumping money or FUD. And any policing/reviewing committee members will
be consisting of human, thereby making it a fertile ground of poor code
certified by *such and such committee*. The best way is to stick to the old
adage of *tried and tested*. Sheer number of users should be the only
criterion to judge any *free software*.
Malay
Malay Kumar Basu
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology
Hyderabad 500007
I N D I A
Fax: (00-91)40-7171195
Phone: (00-91)40-7172241
-----
Useless Invention: Flashbulb tester.
-----
curiouser at ccmb.ap.nic.in
---
