Jacques - I think this is a great idea. For those of you who are extremely talented and proficient with MB and MIPro, I am always grateful, and such a group will be even more valuable when (presumably) MapInfo tapers off it's support of the current platform.
I'm sure many appreciate, as I do, the "free" nature of all this advice and tool collections. Nonetheless, I want to interject an idea that those of you who might form such a group should consider. Often, "free" collections/forums such as this flounder when the driving economical force (in the case MapInfo) is not present. What about if you (and other founding members) asked for a very small membership fee? I'm thinking $5 or $10 per year (US) - keep it very small to encourage membership. Then make all the tools and advice free. The membership fees create an incentive for the group founders/owners to continue the support as long as there is a market need. If you or the founders do not want to get into the "business management" side, perhaps you could find someone to serve as the "director" of this organization to keep the business case in mind. In cases like this from business history, the vacuum left when a platform changes can be filled as a niche by another company - for example, GIS consulting companies will make money by creating transitional software and supporting the old platform. This obviously can't go on forever, nor should it, because the world evolves and .NET is probably a viable future. I am suggesting that existing businesses will probably fill in some of the void, but that an organization with dues can help many users as well. I'm sure this will touch off a debate similar to Windows vs. Linux (capitalism vs. socialism or some other such allusion) - if you feel compelled to take this list down that road, please save everyone's time and do not respond. My intention is purely to offer an idea and NOT to touch off some large-scale debate. Thanks. Darrin -----Original Message----- From: Jacques Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:23 AM To: MIL Subject: MI-L MI/MB developements The recent wish list discussion reopened an old concern of mine that I will sum up to present to you and have your feed back. 1 � I am pretty convinced that MI will not put much efforts into supporting and developing its MI Pro beyond 7.0 in its present format. The move to .net structure will create a rupture in the working environment and in the framework for developing applications. 2 � There will be for several years many MI users who will continue to use versions <=7.0 because they fit their needs or because updating to the latest one (to come) would not be $$$ justified. 3 � There are several, not to say many, among us that have a certain knowledge ob MapBasic and find pleasure at building applications or tools in that language. 4 � The creation of new tools seems to be more in reaction to �personal inspirations� than in answer to some �organized coverage� and potential programming resources are misused with frequent duplications and re-inventions. 5 � Wish lists do not generally differentiate between �internal� improvements (achievable essentially through internal programming) and new �tools� that can be created as external resources. Beside, they do not offer follow-up to wishes I believe that we could set up some organization to improve on that situation. For sake of expediency I offer an acronym: MIP-TPF that someone could read as MapInfo Professional � Tool Programming Forum. I would give it immediately the following tasks: A � recording wishes for tools B � establishing if no solutions already exist (and their availability) C � sketching specifications for new tools required D � recording the resource who would take the responsibility for developing a specific tool E � recording the progress in new tools availability I would also consider adding later on the tasks of F � identifying existing tools and their accessibility G � reviewing existing tools and making recommendations to the users and to their authors In order to make programming easier and more daring, I would add some modus operandi considerations I � the MIP-TPF should be inspired by the terms of the Lesser GNU General Public (Lesser GNU General Public License page at: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html). Tools produced in that spirit will be available with their code and be open to further developments that should be recorded with the MIP-TPF II � the MIP-TPF should provide support to programming by at least identifying existing resources in that area; it could also offer its own MB resource library including all sorts of DLL�s. I would like very much to know your reactions to this suggestion; its usefulness, ways to improve on it, your willingness to participate at its creation, at the conception of tools to support it (site design, functioning and management), your potential contributions as a tool programmer, etc. Once I am convinced there is enough support, I will start the ball rolling most probably by using some special list for the necessary exchanges. I know that you are all very busy, but there are several among you (some have told me so already) who have resources almost available to share, and occasionally some �free� time to �play�. You can answer me directly (I will find a way to sum up at some future date) or through the MapInfo-L if you think your answer can fuel some debate on the subject. Thanks for taking the time of reading this message, and high hopes you will react. Jacques Paris --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 5995
