Anyway, register and you can edit and help out. We laid it out in terms of a setup guide for new astronomers (the one I wrote years ago is out of date) and pages for specific applications or tasks. We need more pages on, for example text editors, dare I say it – graphing programs, etc. So, register and contribute! I think for certain types of information, this could be a good way to get people with various expertise contributing.

Update Ok, I somehow managed to disable editing for registered users. No wonder nothing had changed over the last week or so. It’s fixed now.

Looks like NOAO is back on board with supporting/updating IRAF, after all the hooplah a few years ago. The next version of IRAF will be “official” from NOAO, not from iraf.net and will be supported by NOAO, it looks like. So, this is good news!

p>So, we now have an official word on upcoming changes to IRAF support. The leaked news of changes to IRAF certainly generated some discussion, and some emails. Several questions remain, for me, however in light of this news from NOAO.

<

p>It’s certainly understandable that NOAO has in mind to take data reduction at its facilities in new directions, i.e. this new pipeline, data flow system, whatever they want to call it. IRAF, is after all, a rather old software package. However, that said IRAF is extremely important to a large number of users, and far more research is done with IRAF than on NOAO telescopes themselves. IRAF is important to a large portion of the entire astronomical community, not just as a means to reduce data from NOAO facilities.

<

p>With the announcement, however, several questions remain.

<

p>Why did it take a leak to generate a discussion in the community?

<

p>It took leaked memos, and emails to NOAO to generate their response. Previously, they were simply going to announce support changes in September. I don’t understand why NOAO can’t solicit opinion directly from the astronomical community before making huge changes that effect all of us.

<

p>How much does supporting IRAF really cost?

<

p>It’s my understanding the support costs for support IRAF are relatively low. How many emails can they possibly get about IRAF support get every day? I only get one every week at that; I’m sure they get more but it can’t be overwhelming, maybe a few a day?

<

p>Does NOAO not understand how important IRAF is to the community at large?

<

p>IRAF is not just for reducing data from NOAO telescopes. IRAF is responsible for about 10 times more referreed publications as NOAO telescopes. NOAO’s new data-flow system is great, but it is not in any way a replacement for IRAF. Are we all supposed to use IDL? It seems like IRAF is a bargain for all the science it helps produce.

<

p>IRAF support should be mantained at the current level

<

p>IRAF is as important to the astronomical community as any telescope run by NOAO. As such, it should be treated as a precious resource, not some archaic system who’s value can be downplayed. NOAO should continue to maintain support for IRAF as it is today. The email help line iraf@noao.edu should be kept, and updates and bug fixes to IRAF should not be given any less priority than they are today.

<

p>I understand that NOAO has limited resources. IRAF is an instance where the reward is far greater than the expense. IRAF is used by astronomers all over the country and world. It’s also used for educational purposes in college and sometimes even high school classrooms over the country. I know this from direct emails from teachers and students over the years.

<

p>The expertise of those who helped created and maintain IRAF does not exist outside NOAO, as far as I know. I have no idea how to fix a bug, how to check source code. All I’ve been able to do the last few years is help Macintosh users get through a few UNIX hoops they have to do in order to get IRAF. If the community at large is supposed to somehow help each other through a bulletin board, I don’t see how this can be a replacement for the IRAF email desk, since the announcement indicdates that DPP staff itself won’t answer questions.

<

p>Furthermore, there’s no reason why the development of IRAF should end just because NOAO says it should. IRAF is an excellent facility for reducing and analyizing data, even if it is old. Relatively recent developements such as the GUIAPPS, the new enhanced CL that is on the IRAF web site today – these should all be encouraged and continued, not cast aside. What exactly is the goal of de-emphasizing IRAF with no alternative planned for the future?

<

p>This entire incident has hurt NOAO’s reputation. It would appear that they do understand the deep reliance on IRAF that exists in the astronomical community. IRAF should be enhanced and celebrated – not lowered to some second-tier support level. To me, it seems like that’s just the first step on the road to retirement.