Puneet Kishor wrote:
Getting the previous bonhomie back. Priceless.
I'll second this.
I have no vested interest in MapServer other than seeing it become the most popular, most easy to use, most feature-complete, product in its class.
Here-here. Ok, My turn . . . . I do use MapServer have been for a couple of years now in a few different business models with great success. I've been using AutoDesk Products since AutoCAD 6(something), on PC'c, Mac, and even Solaris. I originally tried out MapServer because MapGuide only ran on Windows (No Windows Servers!, say it with me . . .). There's no going back for me. Before trying out MapServer, I wrote a couple of little versions of MapServer like packages of my own. Since going down the MapServer path life has been good. With the addition of the MSE? i can see things improving with respect to AutoDesk compatibility which has been a sore point with me in the past, as I do quite a lot of AutoDesk Development as well, and most recently with MapServer. While the Foundation would seem like a real good thing to me at first, I'm still somewhat cautious about the whole deal. I do realize the need for the Foundation aspect, and having the support of a large Company should be thought of as a good thing with respect to forming a Foundation. Let's focus on the possiblities. I haven't read anything saying the Foundation idea is a bad one. (I didn't read Every single post, but a lot of them). The main dissentions I've noticed are: 1.) The cloak and Dagger approach to the initial conversations, not at all how I would have approached it, something more like Option #3 would have been much better (Thanks Ed, nicely Written). 2.) The Naming ambiguity, I'm for keeping the "MapServer" moniker, and believe me, I thought the name should have been changed for a long time. It's just got too much industry recognition now to mess with it IMO. Once these two points are cleared up there's not much that I can see in the way of getting back to the Business of making Maps. ;c) bobb
