On Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Bucci, David G wrote: > Not an Apple fan, AM an SU fan, so I’ll play orange for this round. Of > different product selections (FOSS, COTS, GOTS in this case, I suppose) to > use as the base for the project that was described, was what I was thinking. > > > >
The question is still too broad, too generic. Selections and technology are secondary. What you want to accomplish is primary. If there is something that a software/technology cannot do, and *that* is exactly what you need to do, then you *have* to look elsewhere. How about restricting the scope of the inquiry -- perhaps a tradeoff between different map servers, or between different spatial data storage mechanisms, heck, perhaps even between Windows or Unix or, ahem, cough, Macs. Just trying to figure out the difference between FOSS, COTS, GOTS (I have no idea what the heck GOTS is, but I gots some COTS and FOSS) without specifying the capabilities one wishes to deliver is a very amorphous exercise. > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Puneet Kishor > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] EXTERNAL: Re: Web-based geoservices for state > government > > > > On Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Bucci, David G wrote: > > > Stepping back, does anyone know of any published studies where somebody > > (without an ax to grind) really surveyed the marketplace and did a tradeoff > > analysis? > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everyone has an axe to grind, no matter how blunt the axe might be. > > > > That said, analysis of tradeoff between what and what, asked the apple of the > orange? > > > > > -- > Puneet Kishor > Sent with Sparrow > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
