Firman Hadi wrote: > One week ago I had a discussion with someone who is expert in remote > sensing. > It was a really nice discussion though we have a different perspective > in using software. > I prefer to use GRASS, because it's an open source software while he > prefer to use proprietary software.
> He believed that GRASS can't do some tasks that proprietary softwares > do. It is impossible to match every feature when the opponents are a single piece of software vs. an entire software business model. GRASS can't do some things that proprietary GIS do, sure; but GRASS will do more things than the vast majority of other GISs will (proprietary or not). GRASS 6.3 is up to 390 modules, plus there are approx 50-100 addon modules out there. It does a lot of tasks over many fields of endevour. corollary- what are the licensing costs to buy every proprietary toolbox needed to match the features of a full GRASS install? Can it be done for < US$10,000? <$50,000? <$100,000?? > He thought that GRASS is not mature enough to be used. Parts of the core libraries date back to the early 1980s. core projection and import/export libraries are best of breed in the industry AFAICT. At least for GRASS's raster map library (libgis), bug reports are very rare. For those parts, you will not find much more mature specialized software anywhere. Could it be more mature if it was 50 years old instead of 25? (granted maturity ~ integral of time*userbase, not time alone. And maturity is not the same thing as refinement+polish [prettiness]) > He asked me some prove that the results from GRASS is the same with > proprietary software. In the general sense, it is an impossible task to do this with any two software. More important would be to test that the results are correct for both softwares. This is best tested using in-house test cases which deal with tasks which your organization works on; it is impossible prove that GRASS is a 100% clone when it isn't trying to be. In many cases GRASS will produce a more correct result, but different. In other cases not, but to know you have to test. Broad assumptions and claims are useless here. > For me, it will be better if I bring actual comparison between GRASS > and proprietary software, though maybe it will take some time. Is > there any link or arguments to give an accurate explanation for such > kind of people? you might try on the wiki site: http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_Help#Migration_from_other_GIS_Software In many cases I expect his proprietary software would not live up to the standard he asks to be proven of GRASS. good luck, Hamish _______________________________________________ grassuser mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grassuser
