4 ms·

I use Linux but I've never used parallels. At first, I thought you were making that up. But, I looked at your username and realized I have seen you post before

by KGIII 9y ago

I use Linux but I've never used parallels. At first, I thought you were making that up. But, I looked at your username and realized I have seen you post before - and I couldn't imagine you being dishonest about this. You just don't seem like the type to make this sort of stuff up. So, curious, I headed to Google. Sure enough, and for those who don't know, the author wants you to cite parallels when you use it in conjunction with something that is going to be published. Now, to be fair, I've always included citation of the tools involved when I published. However, nobody has ever asked me to directly and nobody has nagged me to do so. If anyone is unfamiliar: https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/ https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/ This appears to be the original thread about it: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/parallel/2013-11/msg00006... It's a bit taboo, I guess. You can pay money and not have to cite it. You can also feed it the --will-cite argument and it won't bug you. Still, it is in probably in poor taste. If nothing else, it is unconventional. I didn't find a whole lot of complaints about it. The only hyperbolic outrage was, interestingly enough, someone on HN who was quite uptight about it. I guess Ole is within his rights to do that, but it is certainly unconventional. I wonder if anyone takes his inflated number of citations as a negative against him? From what I've now read, there don't seem to be a whole lot of complaints. Even the mailing list thread was short and didn't contain any drama. The only drama I found was the post on HN.

dahart 9y ago
I have discussed this before, I really hope the hyperbolic outrage wasn't me though! ;) I like parallel, and this issue is relatively minor. But I admit the language of the nag bothers me just a smidge. > You can pay money and not have to cite it. You can also use it without paying. The nag is neither a license nor contract, and the proposed money isn't a required fee. The language of the notice makes it sound like you have to pay, and makes it sound like part of the license. > I guess Ole is within his rights I agree completely. And I'm in favor of him getting what he wants too! He's right that PR is helpful for his cause, and I appreciate his cause. I just wish he'd ask without the nag, and use softer language. Using parallel isn't a reason to cite it, any more than using LaTeX or emacs would be a reason to cite LaTeX or emacs. And if gnu parallel counts as previous research, it's very unlikely he has to ask. > I didn't find a whole lot of complaints about it. There are some, and I'd agree it's not a huge issue, by and large. The main discussions I've seen have been with package maintainers. It is a small issue, and the few times I have brought it up, I've had a ton of confirmation that it bothers other people a similarly: a little bit.
- KGIII 9y ago
  No, it wasn't you. I didn't mention their username as I don't want to make it look like I'm calling someone out in a thread and I don't want to appear to be harassing other site members. They haven't posted in a couple of years. Instead of calling them out by name, I'll just go ahead and link to the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9521973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9521973 At first, I was thinking it couldn't be true - but then I noticed your username. As I mentioned, I've seen you post before and I didn't think you'd be dishonest. So, I figured I'd go investigate. It is definitely unconventional. Another poster mentioned it violated GNUs guidelines but I doubt that is true. The GNU folks are, shall we say, really big on remaining ethically consistent. If it violated their guidelines, I'm really certain they'd remove it from their site. I am not sure I like the precedent that it sets, though I am not seeing it copied by other projects. Like you, I get why they might do it but, now that I know about it, I don't like the idea of it. I'm not irate, or even perturbed really. It absolutely wouldn't stop me from using the software if I needed it. It does make me curious as to when people stopped listing their tools. I have academic publications with my name on them, so I know you should cite your tools so that others can reproduce your work. That is the whole reason you cite your tools, reproducability. It absolutely shouldn't be because of academic fame for the creator of the tools. It shouldn't be about the toolmaker at all. You cite tools, and versions of said tools, so that others can reproduce your work and, if they can't, they can see if it isn't reproducible due to part of the tool chain being different. In fact, that's one of the great reasons for preferring permissability-based software licenses - so that you have permission to share the exact version of the tools you used to do your research. Citing the toolset just to ensure the author gets a higher counted number is less than optimal. I realize this veers off-topic but I wonder where things went wrong? I finished my dissertation in the early 1990s and haven't published anything since. I took my newly minted doctorate and headed for the private sector. Perhaps someone who remained in academia knows? I am really curious as to when this changed and why it changed? Begging for citations, for something that should give very little credit, shouldn't be a thing. Worse, the situation should never be that someone feels pressured to do so. How did it even get to this point? What did I miss?
  - dahart 9y ago

by KGIII 9y ago

dahart 9y ago

I have discussed this before, I really hope the hyperbolic outrage wasn't me though! ;) I like parallel, and this issue is relatively minor. But I admit the language of the nag bothers me just a smidge. > You can pay money and not have to cite it. You can also use it without paying. The nag is neither a license nor contract, and the proposed money isn't a required fee. The language of the notice makes it sound like you have to pay, and makes it sound like part of the license. > I guess Ole is within his rights I agree completely. And I'm in favor of him getting what he wants too! He's right that PR is helpful for his cause, and I appreciate his cause. I just wish he'd ask without the nag, and use softer language. Using parallel isn't a reason to cite it, any more than using LaTeX or emacs would be a reason to cite LaTeX or emacs. And if gnu parallel counts as previous research, it's very unlikely he has to ask. > I didn't find a whole lot of complaints about it. There are some, and I'd agree it's not a huge issue, by and large. The main discussions I've seen have been with package maintainers. It is a small issue, and the few times I have brought it up, I've had a ton of confirmation that it bothers other people a similarly: a little bit.

KGIII 9y ago
No, it wasn't you. I didn't mention their username as I don't want to make it look like I'm calling someone out in a thread and I don't want to appear to be harassing other site members. They haven't posted in a couple of years. Instead of calling them out by name, I'll just go ahead and link to the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9521973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9521973 At first, I was thinking it couldn't be true - but then I noticed your username. As I mentioned, I've seen you post before and I didn't think you'd be dishonest. So, I figured I'd go investigate. It is definitely unconventional. Another poster mentioned it violated GNUs guidelines but I doubt that is true. The GNU folks are, shall we say, really big on remaining ethically consistent. If it violated their guidelines, I'm really certain they'd remove it from their site. I am not sure I like the precedent that it sets, though I am not seeing it copied by other projects. Like you, I get why they might do it but, now that I know about it, I don't like the idea of it. I'm not irate, or even perturbed really. It absolutely wouldn't stop me from using the software if I needed it. It does make me curious as to when people stopped listing their tools. I have academic publications with my name on them, so I know you should cite your tools so that others can reproduce your work. That is the whole reason you cite your tools, reproducability. It absolutely shouldn't be because of academic fame for the creator of the tools. It shouldn't be about the toolmaker at all. You cite tools, and versions of said tools, so that others can reproduce your work and, if they can't, they can see if it isn't reproducible due to part of the tool chain being different. In fact, that's one of the great reasons for preferring permissability-based software licenses - so that you have permission to share the exact version of the tools you used to do your research. Citing the toolset just to ensure the author gets a higher counted number is less than optimal. I realize this veers off-topic but I wonder where things went wrong? I finished my dissertation in the early 1990s and haven't published anything since. I took my newly minted doctorate and headed for the private sector. Perhaps someone who remained in academia knows? I am really curious as to when this changed and why it changed? Begging for citations, for something that should give very little credit, shouldn't be a thing. Worse, the situation should never be that someone feels pressured to do so. How did it even get to this point? What did I miss?
- dahart 9y ago