Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:20 AM, hadley wickham <h.wick...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Again I'd disagree, perhaps the most widely used suite of software has a >>> very simple and clean web-site with few bells and whistles, ditto for one of >>> the most popular text-editors. I am of course referring to the suite of GNU >>> utilities (http://www.gnu.org/) that make a working GNU/Linux distribution >>> and Emacs (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ ). >>> >>> I like the R web-site, its clean and simple, present key information >>> prominently (manuals, docs, CRAN, RNew and mailing lists). >>> >> Have you ever used the R website? >> >> To download the latest version for R for windows you have to: >> >> 1. avoid clicking on the "R version 2.8.1" link - that takes you to a >> directory listing of strangely named files >> >> 2. recognise that you need to click on an CRAN (what is a cran?) >> >> 3. successfully select a mirror that is up-to-date (with no >> information about which mirrors are up-to-date) >> >> 4. click Windows (ok, this one is easy) >> >> 5. guess that base is the "distribution" that you want >> >> 6. phew, you're there (but don't follow the advice to download from a >> mirror near you or you'll be back at step 3) >> >> > > Its even more confusing than that because actually you're not there > yet! You have to click on the unobtrusive patched link and then > download that or you get the version with the bugs. > >
... while you generally prefer the new bugs. otherwise, when you report a problem, you're (sometimes kindly) asked to upgrade -- and here you go again. vQ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
