GCG current version feedback

David Mathog mathog at seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu
Tue Feb 27 17:12:40 EST 2001

This newsgroup has been very quiet for a long time - are people not using
GCG anymore, or is there just nothing to talk about since they took the
code base out of the distribution? 

We've been running 8.1 for years and are considering "upgrading" to the
current version, primarily to obtain access to SeqWeb and SeqLab.  It isn't 
entirely clear that we'll do this, because near as I can remarkably little
else has been added to the package since 8.1 that isn't also available for
free, with source code, from the original authors (BLAST 2.x, for
instance.)  Plus going to the current version means giving up our custom
GCG based code, our custom driver level modifications, and the expanded 500
Kb sequence size limit. 

So a bit of feedback is requested. 

1.  What's it like dealing with GCG these days?  
2.  How is the turnaround time on maintenance requests (crucial if we go 
       this way since wouldn't be able to maintain it ourselves anymore.) 
3.  Do "naive" users get along ok with SeqWeb or SeqLab, or are they just
      as lost with those interfaces as most now are with the command line?  
4.  Is SeqMerge any better than phred/phrap/consed?  Is it so much better
      that it's worth the price?
5.  What alternatives to GCG, if any, have you adopted?

and just slightly off topic

6.  Would you be happier with the product if you had access to the source 


David Mathog
mathog at seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu
Manager, sequence analysis facility, biology division, Caltech 

More information about the Info-gcg mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net