Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 5988] (fwd) Re: [AAVSO-DIS] CCD-V Vs visual observations > This is an intriguing comment. Most professional astronomers prefer to avoid > endorsing or recommending against available software, and yet here we have > the possibility of some important knowledge. > > Dr. Kato, which software do you believe is "most unreliable"? I con't tell which is the most unreliable software ;-), but know some software is more unreliable than others. If you have a chance to look at the source codes of some software, you can easily recognize how "many programs are unreliable". But this is usually hidden from users. (This is one of the reasons why the VSNET makes the source codes of the software open to the community. The same is true for problems in variable star charts.) So, in many cases we need to speak of a certain software from a purely phenomenological viewpoint. I once banned our local users from using some chart plotting software because of a high frequency of errors in variable star positions, but I recently see the same name of software frequently in some or other mailing lists. And what is worse, similar errors (possibly from a different origin) are found in other software. We have no good idea to regulate such errors. Every time new chart plotting software is released, a similar thing can continue forever. My recommendation is, thus, not to use commercial chart plotting software for variable star observing! Regarding the MuniDOS error (I don't want to mean that this software was the most unreliable one, but I cited this because we could clarify the source of the error) which I referred to, even a community led by a certain group of professional astronomers is proven not to be an obstacle against promulgating that software-borne problem before the software was widespread; this software was even endorsed by a group led by professional astronomers. It took a long time before the problem was recognized only when some data were reported to VSNET with this software, and we noticed some inconsistencies between the reported data. I'm not certain whether the old (wrong) version of this software has been perfectly removed from the entire world. There would be a good chance that some fraction of the presently reported observations comes from the old version of this software, and there is no way, even if the AAVSO HQ works hardest, to recover the correct data from the wrong data. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
