Hey, John,
I meant to send that to the list, not just to you. You can say its
poisoned but look back to your posts and you'll see that you've really
not added anything to the discussion. I'm just pointing it out.
-Perry
John Craddock wrote:
Hello MapServer "Community"
I received this poisoned pen email off-list yesterday. A lot of email discussion has
flowed across the net since, however, I thought I should respond to it in public as my
last "contribution" to this horrid debate. Contrary to the writer's claims, I
have the utmost respect for those few great persons who have brought MapServer to where
it is today. I am just a simple user and the great multiplicity of us are what attests to
the greatness of the effort of the few.
Without the users, there is no community. What has been lost sight of in this
debate is that the efforts of the few pales against the quantum of effort of
the users to learn about and implement MapServer even just by shear numbers. In
many circumstances user's choices about the future with MapServer are severely
limited on account of the level of effort they have invested in it. Please
forgive at least some of us for feeling like the Thanksgiving Turkeys.
The announcement in debate has absolutely nothing to do with the technical
excellence of the proponents from the MapServer side. This announcement is the
result of a business decision. I, like the rest of the MapServer user community
will need to make the decision as to whether the future direction and exposure
warrants continuation with MapServer. However, I do reserve the right to
criticise the prowess of the business decisions that affect me without the
emotive accusations of FUD and doom and gloom.
I have no truck with AutoDesk in this matter. On the contrary, my first post I
think described their move as brilliant, it really is. As a tactical manoeuvre
over their commercial competitors they must have left them gasping. Absolutely
brilliant for all the reasons set out in my previous posts!
For me, I just do not like the AutoDesk business model. Furthermore, the spin
doctors cannot convince me that this deal is large enough to cause a
philosophical sea change within AutoDesk.
For me, the choice is simple; but I am really "Pd-off" for the amount of my
life invested in MapServer. For other users, well some who are more deeply involved may
just have to suck it and see! Seems very unjust to me unless, of course some semblance of
democracy prevails and the issue is put to a vote or a poll.
There have been some standout contentions put in the last day or so that just
do not stand up to scrutiny. The basic tenet of Daniel Morissette's explanation
whilst being feted at AutoDesk is that AutoDesk brings BIG MARKETING CLOUT and
recognition. That is a claim that is completely unproven. Just a simple google
for mapserver gives 2,910,000 hits against 422,000 for mapguide. What better
place to test the exposure rating than the place of application? The professed
requirement for NDAs and secrecy is a legal convenience and may be contrary to
keeping the stock market fully informed.
Anyway this is all dying swan stuff, the developers have forked over to the
foundation already. Question is how many users will follow?
Best Regards
John C
BTW The foundation is a great idea. However, as Gary points out the AutoDesk
lawyers will run it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pericles S. Nacionales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 November 2005 09:21
To: John Craddock
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
John,
I'm sorry but I have to take exception to your posts. Have you no respect to
the authors of MapServer and GDAL? Do you think these guys would really give
up on the projects they started for nothing? Come on, man! Contribute
something more than your doom and gloom messages, something constructive to
the discussion.
-Perry
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:20, John Craddock wrote:
Here we go, membership of the foundation: the MapServer community is just
about to morph into a clone of the Open Design Alliance (nee Open DWG
Alliance). The spin doctors are really at it! How about MTSC and AutoDesk
publishing the hard copy of this deal instead of eking it out in disjointed
discussion emails. The plot thickens, no membership, no voice.
Nothing has been written that assuages the reverse takeover theorem.
Regards
John C
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 November 2005 07:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
Foundation
Brian,
Good points.
I guess it depends on the context of usage. For example in this case I
said:
" And to be clear, I wouldn't care which code base they
wanted to use."
This would seem to be an effective disambiguation of the code
bases. It
wouldn't solve confusion around the foundation and code base
names being
similar, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Apache, OpenOffice,
Eclipse, et al.
I am still interested in the answer to the question. I think
anyone who
joins the foundation should contribute something. A new project, new
code mods, money, etc.
Thoughts?
Gary
