You're absolutely right, pretend I said collaborate instead of consolidate.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>wrote: > I'll do that talk, if there's really interest in it, but it has > nothing to do with technology or desktops, it's sociology and > psychology. And no, efforts cannot "be consolidated" (active > intervention) they "may consolidate" (natural progression). > > P. > > - Why? "Because, we felt like it, and we knew better." > - Pros and cons? Weighted in favor of the > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Brian Russo <br...@beruna.org> wrote: > > I think a more interesting presentation would be why there are so many > > desktop GIS packages, the consequent pros/cons, and if/how efforts could > be > > consolidated. > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Steiniger <sst...@geo.uzh.ch> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hei all, > >> > >> thanks for Cameron on keeping me in the loop, and to Markus for > >> remembering :) I am now subscribed to this list. > >> > >> I think Pauls idea sounds interesting - because this whole comparison > >> thing is > >> a) quite cumbersome when we have 10 desktop GIS (+ X), and > >> b) neither really worth because desktop GIS are used for a multitude of > >> tasks, while web map Servers or databases aren't that much - right? > >> > >> So as Paul is quoted on the osgeo wiki: one needs to set up use cases > >> first (just wrote that today in a new article too, which contains a > section > >> on selecting free GIS software). And I also discovered that just most of > the > >> projects have a different focus during my evaluation. Which of course > does > >> not mean that such thing should not be presented - but it must be > focussed > >> in some way or the other to have a benefit. And as a side note, I am not > >> sure if measuring processing times makes sense either, as GIS analysis > >> feature sets are so different. > >> > >> However, I am in for testing with OpenJUMP. > >> > >> Two more notes: > >> - my comparison tables are now already 2 years old now (from 2007), i.e. > >> need some update (but the last pub in Ecological Informatics took into > >> account newer developments too, but is superficial and focused towards > the > >> "average" GIS users). > >> - I gave a talk about this at OGRS: > >> http://www.ogrs2009.org/doku.php?id=keynotes > >> pdf can be downloaded from there. > >> > >> cheers from Germany right now (Xmas) > >> stefan > >> > >> PS: I know also of this comparison by T. Hengl et al. on Grass vs. SAGA > >> for Geomorphologic Analysis > >> > http://www.igc.usp.br/pessoais/guano/downloads/Hengl_etal_2009_gmorph.pdf > >> > >> > >> Paul Ramsey schrieb: > >>> > >>> Interested in a different approach that is lower impact, but still > >>> interesting and entertaining? Have developers review a "competing" > >>> project and then present their findings, in the form of "What I love > >>> about ___, what I hate about____". > >>> > >>> Jody Garnett presents "What I love about QGIS, what I hate about QGIS." > >>> Jorge Sanz presents "What I love about uDig, what I hate about uDig." > >>> Tim Sutton presents "What I love about gvSIG, what I hate about gvSIG." > >>> > >>> Not only do you get an unvarnished view, but you can have shorter > >>> presentations with a discussion segment at the end of each one. > >>> > >>> Works for almost any application category too. > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss