Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Brian Russo]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Puttick
 wrote:
> Terribly off-topic now, so feel free to stop reading...

Yes.. if anyone wants to ping me offline about this feel free..

> ...not realising high or often any business value. Business value is where 
> what you expend money and get more in return than you spent. Incredibly easy 
> to measure in small businesses with few employees and a simple business 
> model, harder the larger the business or the more complex the concept of 
> value becomes e.g. in a charity or government organisation. There is good 
> evidence that collectively western economies have spent more on IT than they 
> have realised in value.

I 100% agree that most IT procurement is terrible. People go after
'shiney' technology that solves an immediate perceived requirement but
do not go through the more expensive (in the short term) work of
really assessing how their IT infrastructure is actually
enabling/supporting their business processes.

However this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how the
software is licensed. You can make similarly horrible decisions using
open source software… proprietary... whatever. It doesn’t matter.
Remember all the crappy linux based phones out there? They sucked
until we got Android ones. Companies would have gotten better value
using blackberries or something before that time The true reason
people end up in that situation is because the technology they bought
isn’t supporting their business properly. It’s like buying a gym
membership you never use. Does that mean the gym sucks? It might, but
all it really means is that you're not getting value out of the cost
you expended. It doesn't tell you why.

> The business case is not simple, any more than it is in marketing; but here's 
> my base position in simple terms. I select solutions that maximise our future 
> choices and reduce our costs; a further benefit is derived if I can move any 
> remaining costs from fixed annual overhead to per employee or pure capital; 
> while there may be short term pain as people get used to the changes, any 
> increase in costs for that short period will be more than offset by the long 
> term decrease in costs and increases in flexibility for the organisation.

This is where I disagree with you. If you focus on cost as the thing
to reduce you will more often than not lose. Lowering cost should be
an incidental outcome that happens as a result of increasing value and
efficiency. It's quite possible to end up spending more money on IT
than you were in the first place (more frequently you end up spending
it in the right places instead of the wrong and net overall IT
savings) - but if your overall business value has increased more or
commensurately then spending more is probably the right outcome.

> Luckily for me I don't have to justify to others other than in my long term 
> results. I'm aware that this continues to be a rare privilege for the top of 
> the information systems tree and that many organisations continue to not have 
> technical expertise at the highest level, resulting in many decisions in that 
> area being taken with the wrong information and wrong motivations. I'm 
> working on that too.

I would instead argue that the main problem is a lack of
differentiation between CIOs and CTOs. Most organisations involved in
IT are still primarily technology-driven in terms of their procurement
- rather than remembering that their IT is only a means to an end
(supporting business processes & content).

Running a cheap subversion + trac server on Linux is better than
spending $10k on some proprietary software with more substantial
hardware requirements. However an even better solution may be to
outsource it to someone else and pay them $20/month to manage it all.
As long as they support my business process (managing code) and I have
no other reasons to insist on a specific platform I may not really
care. Shifting host providers down the road isn't really a big deal so
even if they're basing it off proprietary software that's transparent
to me. I have my cake and eat it - I pay someone $3/month to host all
that stuff for me using subversion + other tools.

Look at it this way - do you care if your ethernet switches run
proprietary firmware? There's fundamentally no difference between that
and an operating system if I abstract my processes sufficiently. Means
to an end. I realize the real world is a bit muddier, but the point is
to focus on what's important - your information and process continuity
- NOT the system it 'happens' to be running on now. Assume that will
change and plan accordingly. So when you say that you think .Net is a
bad platform to base systems on - I understand your reasons elicited -
but you're acting like a CTO, not a CIO.


-- 
Brian Russo / (808) 271 4166
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Chris Puttick]

Terribly off-topic now, so feel free to stop reading...

- "Brian Russo"  wrote:

> It wasn't directed at you Chris, nor specifically at anyone.
> 
> I just think the general tone of this conversation is pretty
> unproductive. Sure people have reasons about "being" strategic"
> everything but maybe it's just how I'm reading it but I just see the
> old, familiar tones of the "Free Software Movement" which is "do it
> my
> way (100% free) or the highway". I don't think that helps anyone..

You can take it on faith or a Google that I'm pragmatic on the issue. I've 
explained why I think .net is a poor strategic choice, and that my motivations 
are strategic. I am all too well aware that many IT decisions are based on 
convenience and short term outlook, and pretty sure that's a major factor in...

> 
> It's all well and good if you're in a small organisation with 300 pcs
> or whatever like Chris P and you have that sort of latitude.. but
> people forget that most organisations aren't driven by cost or
> ideology - they're driven by business value. Openness is no different
> than being Green/Sustainable. It has to make good business sense in
> order to be the right decision. I can't go to my bosses and say "we
> have to do this because it's open source". They won't care and I
> don't
> blame them.

...not realising high or often any business value. Business value is where what 
you expend money and get more in return than you spent. Incredibly easy to 
measure in small businesses with few employees and a simple business model, 
harder the larger the business or the more complex the concept of value becomes 
e.g. in a charity or government organisation. There is good evidence that 
collectively western economies have spent more on IT than they have realised in 
value.

The business case is not simple, any more than it is in marketing; but here's 
my base position in simple terms. I select solutions that maximise our future 
choices and reduce our costs; a further benefit is derived if I can move any 
remaining costs from fixed annual overhead to per employee or pure capital; 
while there may be short term pain as people get used to the changes, any 
increase in costs for that short period will be more than offset by the long 
term decrease in costs and increases in flexibility for the organisation. 

Luckily for me I don't have to justify to others other than in my long term 
results. I'm aware that this continues to be a rare privilege for the top of 
the information systems tree and that many organisations continue to not have 
technical expertise at the highest level, resulting in many decisions in that 
area being taken with the wrong information and wrong motivations. I'm working 
on that too.

There are other aspects to openness that may derive negative value for some 
organisations e.g. opening data - great for archaeology, bankruptcy for 
marketing companies, a matter for the courts for financial companies. But open 
source solutions for your organisation's IT has no downsides. Unless there are 
no open source solutions that can be made to do the job.

Sorry this thread has deteriorated into a management philosophy discussion. I'm 
here mostly for the open, I'm not so strong on the geospatial...

Cheers

Chris


--
Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document 
Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info 
for more information.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Brian Russo]

It wasn't directed at you Chris, nor specifically at anyone.

I just think the general tone of this conversation is pretty
unproductive. Sure people have reasons about "being" strategic"
everything but maybe it's just how I'm reading it but I just see the
old, familiar tones of the "Free Software Movement" which is "do it my
way (100% free) or the highway". I don't think that helps anyone..

It's all well and good if you're in a small organisation with 300 pcs
or whatever like Chris P and you have that sort of latitude.. but
people forget that most organisations aren't driven by cost or
ideology - they're driven by business value. Openness is no different
than being Green/Sustainable. It has to make good business sense in
order to be the right decision. I can't go to my bosses and say "we
have to do this because it's open source". They won't care and I don't
blame them.

 - bri

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Christopher Schmidt
 wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:06:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
>> The latent arrogance displayed in this thread is more destructive than
>> any software license.
>
> I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I really
> just think it's important to realize that "Not every programmer programs
> like I do". There are many different, effective ways, and tools that can
> be used to write code; writing them off for yourself is fine, but trying
> to control the decisions someone else makes is ill-advised and potentially
> harmful.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christopher Schmidt
> Web Developer
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Brian Russo / (808) 271 4166
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)]

What I meant to say was...  Chris P. has strategic reasons for his
choices and was inviting others to share (offline) their strategic
reasons for their choices.  I wasn't trying to keep this thread running :)

Tyler

Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
>> Listen, I personally appreciate the zeal for open sourcing software
>> and data (most of my personal religion is based on the belief that
>> open data are better for everyone), but trash talking closed software
>> makes the whole world blind.
> 
> Of course we never trash talk other open source languages either, do we?
>  Where would we be without all the good arguments for Python vs the
> 'others'... ;-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> Just to say, we have done pretty good on this list avoiding platform or
> language wars, but I am interested to learn what
> strengths/features/ease-of-use others find in their language of choice.
>Just to be better educated, not to flame anyone.
> 
> Tyler
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:06:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> The latent arrogance displayed in this thread is more destructive than
> any software license.

I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I really
just think it's important to realize that "Not every programmer programs
like I do". There are many different, effective ways, and tools that can
be used to write code; writing them off for yourself is fine, but trying
to control the decisions someone else makes is ill-advised and potentially
harmful.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Brian Russo]

The latent arrogance displayed in this thread is more destructive than
any software license.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Christopher Schmidt
 wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:14:35PM -0400, Arnie Shore wrote:
>> Awww, the relative merits of the platforms/languages involved, IMO, are a
>> far second behind the factor of whether or not the choice makes it available
>> to the largest community of possible users.  Free is good;  de-facto
>> limitations ain't.
>>
>> The author is certainly to be applauded both for developing the package and
>> offering it here.  But  I for one can't jump at it.
>>
>> Ya gotta have an OS and a language, so any choice here will prbly hack off
>> some of the truly devout.  But you don't gotta have a framework -
>> proprietary or not.
>
> Huh?
>
> Are there any graphical GIS programs that don't use *some* framework?
>
> qgis uses, I believe, qt.
> uDig, I believe, uses Swing.
>
> Heck, even RESTClient uses wx (via Python).
>
> In web applications, the situation is even more pronounced -- Django,
> TurboGears, etc. For UI work, jquery/ext/mootools, etc.
>
> Using a framework as part of your development encourages you to write the
> hard parts... rather than doing the easy parts that people have done before
> all over again.
>
> Now, you may not like the particular one that was chosen here, but that's
> hardly the same as saying "You should enver develop with a framework."
>
> -- Chris
>
>> The choice of .NET rules out for me any interest other
>> than curiosity.  And to point out that MONO resolves the .NET issue, simply
>> translates to 'you gotta have that in addition to the basic product', adding
>> to the relative complexity and fragility of an implementation.
>>
>> So, thanks, but no thanks.
>>
>> AS
>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> --
> Christopher Schmidt
> Web Developer
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Brian Russo / (808) 271 4166
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:14:35PM -0400, Arnie Shore wrote:
> Awww, the relative merits of the platforms/languages involved, IMO, are a
> far second behind the factor of whether or not the choice makes it available
> to the largest community of possible users.  Free is good;  de-facto
> limitations ain't.
> 
> The author is certainly to be applauded both for developing the package and
> offering it here.  But  I for one can't jump at it.
> 
> Ya gotta have an OS and a language, so any choice here will prbly hack off
> some of the truly devout.  But you don't gotta have a framework -
> proprietary or not.  

Huh?

Are there any graphical GIS programs that don't use *some* framework?

qgis uses, I believe, qt.
uDig, I believe, uses Swing.

Heck, even RESTClient uses wx (via Python).

In web applications, the situation is even more pronounced -- Django, 
TurboGears, etc. For UI work, jquery/ext/mootools, etc.

Using a framework as part of your development encourages you to write the 
hard parts... rather than doing the easy parts that people have done before
all over again.

Now, you may not like the particular one that was chosen here, but that's
hardly the same as saying "You should enver develop with a framework."

-- Chris

> The choice of .NET rules out for me any interest other
> than curiosity.  And to point out that MONO resolves the .NET issue, simply
> translates to 'you gotta have that in addition to the basic product', adding
> to the relative complexity and fragility of an implementation.
> 
> So, thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> AS

> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Arnie Shore]

Awww, the relative merits of the platforms/languages involved, IMO, are a
far second behind the factor of whether or not the choice makes it available
to the largest community of possible users.  Free is good;  de-facto
limitations ain't.

The author is certainly to be applauded both for developing the package and
offering it here.  But  I for one can't jump at it.

Ya gotta have an OS and a language, so any choice here will prbly hack off
some of the truly devout.  But you don't gotta have a framework -
proprietary or not.  The choice of .NET rules out for me any interest other
than curiosity.  And to point out that MONO resolves the .NET issue, simply
translates to 'you gotta have that in addition to the basic product', adding
to the relative complexity and fragility of an implementation.

So, thanks, but no thanks.

AS
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Ivan Lucena]

I think the "Transparent" Box is a brilliant idea, sorry if I changed the name 
but what it is. Right? We can look inside and find some issues but that is not 
the point. It attends what it proposes and the quality/usability is very decent.

Congratulation Prof. Lindsay, Adam, Doug, Haze and Micha.

Great Job!


>  ---Original Message---
>  From: Daniel Ames 
>  To: OSGeo Discussions 
>  Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
>  Sent: Mar 26 '10 11:46
>  
>  As I said to John in a PM, I think what he's doing is extremely
>  important and will help bolster the concept of open source for the masses
>  that we've been pushing with our .NET MapWindow project.
>  
>  
>  Three cheers to ANYONE who is willing to bust their chops on some code and
>  put it out to the world!
>  
>  
>  - Dan
>  
>  
>  On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) <[LINK:
>  mailto:tmitch...@osgeo.org] tmitch...@osgeo.org> wrote:
>  
>  P Kishor wrote:
>  > Listen, I personally appreciate the zeal for open sourcing software
>  > and data (most of my personal religion is based on the belief that
>  > open data are better for everyone), but trash talking closed software
>  > makes the whole world blind.
>  
>  Of course we never trash talk other open source languages either, do we?
>   Where would we be without all the good arguments for Python vs the
>  'others'... ;-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.
>  
>  Just to say, we have done pretty good on this list avoiding platform or
>  language wars, but I am interested to learn what
>  strengths/features/ease-of-use others find in their language of choice.
>Just to be better educated, not to flame anyone.
>  
>  Tyler
>  
>  
>  ___
>  Discuss mailing list
>  [LINK: mailto:disc...@lists.osgeo.org] Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>  [LINK: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss]
>  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>  
>  
>  --
>  Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D. PE
>  Associate Professor, Geosciences
>  Idaho State University - Idaho Falls
>  [LINK: mailto:amesd...@isu.edu] amesd...@isu.edu
>  [LINK: http://geology.isu.edu] geology.isu.edu
>  [LINK: http://www.hydromap.com] www.hydromap.com
>  [LINK: http://www.mapwindow.org] www.mapwindow.org
>  
>  *
>  See you at MapWindow GIS 2010!
>  Orlando, Florida, USA
>  31 March - 2 April 2010
>  [LINK: http://www.mapwindow.org/conference/2010]
>  http://www.mapwindow.org/conference/2010
>  
>  Also at:
>  AWRA GIS 2010: [LINK: http://www.awra.org/meetings/Florida2010/]
>  http://www.awra.org/meetings/Florida2010/
>  IEMSS 2010: [LINK: http://www.iemss.org/iemss2010/]
>  http://www.iemss.org/iemss2010/
>  *
>  
>  
>  
>  ___
>  Discuss mailing list
>  [LINK: compose.php?to=disc...@lists.osgeo.org] Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>  [LINK: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss]
>  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Daniel Ames]

As I said to John in a PM, I think what he's doing is extremely important
and will help bolster the concept of open source for the masses that we've
been pushing with our .NET MapWindow project.

Three cheers to ANYONE who is willing to bust their chops on some code and
put it out to the world!

- Dan

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) <
tmitch...@osgeo.org> wrote:

> P Kishor wrote:
> > Listen, I personally appreciate the zeal for open sourcing software
> > and data (most of my personal religion is based on the belief that
> > open data are better for everyone), but trash talking closed software
> > makes the whole world blind.
>
> Of course we never trash talk other open source languages either, do we?
>  Where would we be without all the good arguments for Python vs the
> 'others'... ;-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.
>
> Just to say, we have done pretty good on this list avoiding platform or
> language wars, but I am interested to learn what
> strengths/features/ease-of-use others find in their language of choice.
>   Just to be better educated, not to flame anyone.
>
> Tyler
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D. PE
Associate Professor, Geosciences
Idaho State University - Idaho Falls
amesd...@isu.edu
geology.isu.edu
www.hydromap.com
www.mapwindow.org

*
See you at MapWindow GIS 2010!
Orlando, Florida, USA
31 March - 2 April 2010
http://www.mapwindow.org/conference/2010

Also at:
AWRA GIS 2010: http://www.awra.org/meetings/Florida2010/
IEMSS 2010: http://www.iemss.org/iemss2010/
*
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[P Kishor]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)
 wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
>> Listen, I personally appreciate the zeal for open sourcing software
>> and data (most of my personal religion is based on the belief that
>> open data are better for everyone), but trash talking closed software
>> makes the whole world blind.
>
> Of course we never trash talk other open source languages either, do we?
>  Where would we be without all the good arguments for Python vs the
> 'others'... ;-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.
>
> Just to say, we have done pretty good on this list avoiding platform or
> language wars, but I am interested to learn what
> strengths/features/ease-of-use others find in their language of choice.
>   Just to be better educated, not to flame anyone.
>


It will lead to religious wars inevitably... weaknesses and strengths
of language are probably better discussed on specific language forums.
Probably other forums are appropriate, but OSGeo-discuss is too
generic for it, imo.

That said, I am finding Python advocates increasingly insufferable;
their wonder at "look at this wonderful thing I discovered I can do"
bores me to tears, and their enthusiasm for white space in code that
actually
  means something
  is just
bewildering.

;-)


-- 
just another hacker of a language whose name begins with P
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)]

P Kishor wrote:
> Listen, I personally appreciate the zeal for open sourcing software
> and data (most of my personal religion is based on the belief that
> open data are better for everyone), but trash talking closed software
> makes the whole world blind.

Of course we never trash talk other open source languages either, do we?
 Where would we be without all the good arguments for Python vs the
'others'... ;-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.

Just to say, we have done pretty good on this list avoiding platform or
language wars, but I am interested to learn what
strengths/features/ease-of-use others find in their language of choice.
   Just to be better educated, not to flame anyone.

Tyler
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 04:03:52PM +, Chris Puttick wrote:
> Please understand I am in no way criticising your software, which
> sounds of interest although out of reach for me. I am also highly
> appreciative of the work you and others like you put into developing
> solutions which you then share with others and I do what I can to
> contribute too. I am just hoping to persuade you and others that .net
> has far more bad points than good and to consider using a different
> software development framework/tools in the future.

"I like your software, I just wish you hadn't written it the way you
did. You should have written it the way I would have instead."

This kind of argument is why I choose the "Open Source" moniker for my
work instead of the "Free Software" moniker. Many people are willing to
work and open source their work -- continuing to criticize someone for
the way they chose to do that goes beyond simply expressing an opinion,
and directly in to "rude."

I don't think anyone here is confused or uninformed about the status of
.Net or the technologies around it.

> I guess it is a matter of perspective. I want to have the widest set
> of choices professionally and personally want the largest number of
> choices to be available for others. 

That's a reasonable desire, but not a reasonable desire to force on
someone who wants to develop software (unless you're paying them).
Discouraging someone taking steps towards releasing open source software
because you don't agree with the design/development choices they made
isn't appropriate, in my opinion, in an open source software discussion
forum.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing list for .NET work?

[Alex Mandel]

On 03/26/2010 09:10 AM, P Kishor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Michael P. Gerlek  
> wrote:
>> I'm thinking there might be a reasonable number of .NET folks lurking around 
>> here, and that it might be nice to have a mailing list for .NET-specific 
>> open source geo work -- what projects are being done, what issues people 
>> have, etc, etc.
>>
>> If interested, send email (to me or to list, at your preference) and we'll 
>> see how much support there is.
>>
>> [Pls don't hijack this thread for arguing about how open/closed .NET is.]
>>
> 
> 
> Actually, I would encourage you to discuss it right here, unless you
> want to focus on a specific project's development work, in which case
> an OSGeo--dev kinda list might be more suitable.
> 
> I would love to vicariously learn more about what is going on in other
> programming worlds, otherwise I would be clueless about them.
> 
> 
> 
I would agree that project specific lists are the way to go, I think
language/framework specific lists on OSGeo would only fracture the
community dialog.

I would also hope that we are open enough to entertain discussions about
all open source (regardless of which language, and how open).

Thanks,
Alex

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[P Kishor]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Chris Puttick
 wrote:
> Please understand I am in no way criticising your software, which sounds of 
> interest although out of reach for me. I am also highly appreciative of the 
> work you and others like you put into developing solutions which you then 
> share with others and I do what I can to contribute too. I am just hoping to 
> persuade you and others that .net has far more bad points than good and to 
> consider using a different software development framework/tools in the future.
>
> I find it sensible to stare warily at gift-horses associated with companies 
> whose primary stated purpose is the maximisation of shareholder value. 
> Paid-for software of the "license to use" variety is a legacy concept 
> fighting hard for survival; those companies whose entire business model is 
> paid-for software are seeking all sorts of methods to ensure they can 
> continue to profit from those business models.

You make that assertion based on what evidence? Any citations?
Slideshow presentations and keynote addresses at conferences don't
count.

Surely the fact that a bunch of us open source aficionados have a
number of projects we work on and talk about does not an evidence make
that paid-for software is fighting hard for survival. Let me see... 26
million copies of Mac OS X, 45 million copies of iPhone OS... and that
is only single digit percentage of worldwide operating system share,
more than 90%+ of which is Windows -- a "legacy software fighting hard
for survival"? I think not.

Listen, I personally appreciate the zeal for open sourcing software
and data (most of my personal religion is based on the belief that
open data are better for everyone), but trash talking closed software
makes the whole world blind.

My personal belief is that the most powerful programming language in
the world is the one you know. The Whitehouse GAT developers happen to
be versed in .NET. Let us appreciate what they are doing, and learn
from it... as I said earlier, good ideas cross-pollinate, so it can
only be good for the entire software ecosystem.


> The majority of methods being adopted are, like .net, all about lock-in, 
> about making it harder and more costly to move from the incumbent (and 
> encumbered) solution. Hence why I would suggest the use of that particular 
> framework (and there are so many to chose from that are as good or better, 
> even before taking into account the cross-platform bonus feature) is a bad 
> thing; its apparent convenience hides a massive cost base, both upfront and 
> TCO.
>
> My job, as sad as it may be, is strategic. I have to think about the future 
> of the organisation for which I work with two over-riding drivers for the 
> decisions I make in my area of responsibility: make it better and make it 
> cheaper. The former requires usability, flexibility, maximisation of choice, 
> and functionality; the latter requires elimination of lock-in to ensure the 
> lowest cost options can be considered. Both tend to mean open solutions are 
> given a high weighting. I can't focus on the immediacy of convenience, as so 
> many of my peers have; evidence has shown the end result is no more money is 
> made/saved by the use of IT than is spent on the IT and all too often less.
>
> So that means absolutely no .net. Applications written against mono are more 
> likely to be considered, although I personally believe that developing mono 
> as a poor relation clone of .net is a mistake and a tragic waste of effort; 
> innovation is required to disrupt, not poor copies. Almost all of the 
> software we are deploying in the organisation, GIS or otherwise, is entirely 
> platform neutral. Versions exist that can run on many operating systems and 
> even different processor architectures. Software we are developing internally 
> we endeavour to make as open as possible in the same spirit; for example 
> gvSIG OADE is made available compiled for Mac OSX of which we have exactly 
> 0/300 computers using.
>
> I guess it is a matter of perspective. I want to have the widest set of 
> choices professionally and personally want the largest number of choices to 
> be available for others. Those who sell software licences want choices to be 
> limited to their platform, whether that be operating system or ERP tools. I'd 
> like to have the choice to try your app, which has interesting user education 
> opportunities, but it would remove the choice of desktop operating system. 
> Ahh well.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Puttick
> CIO
> Oxford Archaeology: Exploring the Human Journey
> Direct: +44 (0)1865 980 718
> Switchboard: +44 (0)1865 263 800
> Mobile: +44 (0)7908 997 146
> http://thehumanjourney.net
>
>
> - "John Lindsay"  wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Thank you for your feedback. I think, however, you might be staring a
>> gift horse in the mouth. I write software primarily because I need it
>> and am happy to share it with others. For me, open-source is about
>> sharing

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing list for .NET work?

[P Kishor]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Michael P. Gerlek  wrote:
> I'm thinking there might be a reasonable number of .NET folks lurking around 
> here, and that it might be nice to have a mailing list for .NET-specific open 
> source geo work -- what projects are being done, what issues people have, 
> etc, etc.
>
> If interested, send email (to me or to list, at your preference) and we'll 
> see how much support there is.
>
> [Pls don't hijack this thread for arguing about how open/closed .NET is.]
>


Actually, I would encourage you to discuss it right here, unless you
want to focus on a specific project's development work, in which case
an OSGeo--dev kinda list might be more suitable.

I would love to vicariously learn more about what is going on in other
programming worlds, otherwise I would be clueless about them.



-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
---
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
===
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Chris Puttick]

Please understand I am in no way criticising your software, which sounds of 
interest although out of reach for me. I am also highly appreciative of the 
work you and others like you put into developing solutions which you then share 
with others and I do what I can to contribute too. I am just hoping to persuade 
you and others that .net has far more bad points than good and to consider 
using a different software development framework/tools in the future.

I find it sensible to stare warily at gift-horses associated with companies 
whose primary stated purpose is the maximisation of shareholder value. Paid-for 
software of the "license to use" variety is a legacy concept fighting hard for 
survival; those companies whose entire business model is paid-for software are 
seeking all sorts of methods to ensure they can continue to profit from those 
business models. The majority of methods being adopted are, like .net, all 
about lock-in, about making it harder and more costly to move from the 
incumbent (and encumbered) solution. Hence why I would suggest the use of that 
particular framework (and there are so many to chose from that are as good or 
better, even before taking into account the cross-platform bonus feature) is a 
bad thing; its apparent convenience hides a massive cost base, both upfront and 
TCO.

My job, as sad as it may be, is strategic. I have to think about the future of 
the organisation for which I work with two over-riding drivers for the 
decisions I make in my area of responsibility: make it better and make it 
cheaper. The former requires usability, flexibility, maximisation of choice, 
and functionality; the latter requires elimination of lock-in to ensure the 
lowest cost options can be considered. Both tend to mean open solutions are 
given a high weighting. I can't focus on the immediacy of convenience, as so 
many of my peers have; evidence has shown the end result is no more money is 
made/saved by the use of IT than is spent on the IT and all too often less.

So that means absolutely no .net. Applications written against mono are more 
likely to be considered, although I personally believe that developing mono as 
a poor relation clone of .net is a mistake and a tragic waste of effort; 
innovation is required to disrupt, not poor copies. Almost all of the software 
we are deploying in the organisation, GIS or otherwise, is entirely platform 
neutral. Versions exist that can run on many operating systems and even 
different processor architectures. Software we are developing internally we 
endeavour to make as open as possible in the same spirit; for example gvSIG 
OADE is made available compiled for Mac OSX of which we have exactly 0/300 
computers using.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I want to have the widest set of choices 
professionally and personally want the largest number of choices to be 
available for others. Those who sell software licences want choices to be 
limited to their platform, whether that be operating system or ERP tools. I'd 
like to have the choice to try your app, which has interesting user education 
opportunities, but it would remove the choice of desktop operating system. Ahh 
well.

Chris

-- 
Chris Puttick
CIO
Oxford Archaeology: Exploring the Human Journey
Direct: +44 (0)1865 980 718
Switchboard: +44 (0)1865 263 800
Mobile: +44 (0)7908 997 146
http://thehumanjourney.net


- "John Lindsay"  wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> Thank you for your feedback. I think, however, you might be staring a
> gift horse in the mouth. I write software primarily because I need it
> and am happy to share it with others. For me, open-source is about
> sharing ideas, innovating, and improving education. I'm fortunate that
> I don't need to rely on my programming to make money. Like most
> computer users, I use Windows and .NET is the framework that we have.
> It's an excellent framework, despite what some may think of the
> company that developed it. I understand that many people chose other
> operating systems (and good for them!) but I'm also aware that the
> Mono framework allows for the possibility of running Whitebox GAT on
> Linux/Mac. There are currently people working on porting Whitebox over
> using Mono. I suspect, however, that there are some out there who
> would still not be pleased with the use of Mono as a framework. The
> fact of the matter is that not everybody will be happy all of the
> time. If this isn't the solution that suits you, I'm sure there are
> others that are more suited. And that's fine by me. It's just nice
> that people out there are working hard every day to ensure that you
> have choices, isn't it?
> 
> -- 
> John Lindsay, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Guelph
> Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1   CANADA
> Phone: (519) 824-4120 x56074
> Fax: (519) 837-2940
> Email:  jlind...@uoguelph.ca
> Department Web: www.uoguelph.ca/geography/
> Personal Web:
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/people/faculty/lindsay.shtml
> 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing list for .NET work?

[Michael P. Gerlek]

I'm thinking there might be a reasonable number of .NET folks lurking around 
here, and that it might be nice to have a mailing list for .NET-specific open 
source geo work -- what projects are being done, what issues people have, etc, 
etc.

If interested, send email (to me or to list, at your preference) and we'll see 
how much support there is.

[Pls don't hijack this thread for arguing about how open/closed .NET is.]

-mpg

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Whitebox GAT

[Sajith VK]

Hi,

seems to be a great idea. Thanks for this tool.
I will try it and get back to you with More details.


Sajith VK
Freedom is not Free


On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Chris Puttick <
chris.putt...@thehumanjourney.net> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Really exciting concept, I very much like the idea of letting the user see
> the algorithm; I just differ from other people's views on the use of .net.
> This is effectively a closed technology and one controlled by a company that
> has no interested in the sustainability of the solutions created within it.
> The use of .net also limits the platforms on which the solution can be
> deployed; strategically that is poor i.e. the limiting of choices in one
> area because of the choices in another. I would be interested, I imagine
> off-list, in your reasons for choosing that closed development approach for
> something you wanted to make very open in other ways.
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>
> - "John Lindsay"  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I wanted to let you know about a new open-source GIS project that I
> > have initiated called Whitebox Geospatial Analysis Tools. Whitebox GAT
> > is a user-friendly and expendable GIS with significant capabilities
> > for spatial analysis. In developing Whitebox GAT I have taken a
> > transparent approach to the open-source paradigm. That is, if the user
> > would like to know how a particular tool's algorithm works, they need
> > not download the source code and wade through the immense code base to
> > find the few lines of relevant code. Instead, each tool has a 'View
> > Code' button that will bring up the specific code related to the tool.
> > Furthermore, they are able to convert the code into other programming
> > languages. The idea is to remove some of the barriers that exist
> > between the developer community and the user community. My analogy is
> > that commercial software is like a locked library where only a few
> > select individuals have the right to access the information contained
> > within; most open source software packages, at least from the
> > viewpoint of the user, is like a public library but there is no
> > cataloging system and the books are all written in Greek; Whitebox is
> > much more like the Internet. You can download Whitebox GAT from:
> >
> > http://www.uoguelph.ca/~hydrogeo/Whitebox/index.html
> >
> > I'd certainly appreciate any feedback that you may have.
> >
> > John Lindsay, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
> > Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Guelph
> > Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1   CANADA
> > Phone: (519) 824-4120 x56074
> > Fax: (519) 837-2940
> > Email:  jlind...@uoguelph.ca
> > Department Web: www.uoguelph.ca/geography/
> > Personal Web: http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/faculty/lindsay.html
> > ___
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Chris Puttick
> CIO
> Oxford Archaeology: Exploring the Human Journey
> Direct: +44 (0)1865 980 718
> Switchboard: +44 (0)1865 263 800
> Mobile: +44 (0)7908 997 146
> http://thehumanjourney.net
>
>
> --
> Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open
> Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit
> http://iso26300.info for more information.
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[P Kishor]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Lindsay  wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. I think, however, you might be staring a gift
> horse in the mouth. I write software primarily because I need it and am
> happy to share it with others. For me, open-source is about sharing ideas,
> innovating, and improving education. I'm fortunate that I don't need to rely
> on my programming to make money. Like most computer users, I use Windows and
> .NET is the framework that we have. It's an excellent framework, despite
> what some may think of the company that developed it. I understand that many
> people chose other operating systems (and good for them!) but I'm also aware
> that the Mono framework allows for the possibility of running Whitebox GAT
> on Linux/Mac. There are currently people working on porting Whitebox over
> using Mono. I suspect, however, that there are some out there who would
> still not be pleased with the use of Mono as a framework. The fact of the
> matter is that not everybody will be happy all of the time. If this isn't
> the solution that suits you, I'm sure there are others that are more suited.
> And that's fine by me. It's just nice that people out there are working hard
> every day to ensure that you have choices, isn't it?
>

As a very happy Mac user of a gorgeous proprietary interface on top of
an open source operating system, I say to you, "Very well said."
Thanks for creating this and working on this. Even though I won't use
it (right away) I am sure many will benefit from Whitebox GAT, and
others will borrow good ideas from it. Benefit all around.

Keep up the great work.





> --
> John Lindsay, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Guelph
> Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1   CANADA
> Phone: (519) 824-4120 x56074
> Fax: (519) 837-2940
> Email:  jlind...@uoguelph.ca
> Department Web: www.uoguelph.ca/geography/
> Personal Web: http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/people/faculty/lindsay.shtml
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
---
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
===
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[John Lindsay]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your feedback. I think, however, you might be staring a gift 
horse in the mouth. I write software primarily because I need it and am happy 
to share it with others. For me, open-source is about sharing ideas, 
innovating, and improving education. I'm fortunate that I don't need to rely on 
my programming to make money. Like most computer users, I use Windows and .NET 
is the framework that we have. It's an excellent framework, despite what some 
may think of the company that developed it. I understand that many people chose 
other operating systems (and good for them!) but I'm also aware that the Mono 
framework allows for the possibility of running Whitebox GAT on Linux/Mac. 
There are currently people working on porting Whitebox over using Mono. I 
suspect, however, that there are some out there who would still not be pleased 
with the use of Mono as a framework. The fact of the matter is that not 
everybody will be happy all of the time. If this isn't the solution that suits 
you, I'm sure there are others that are more suited. And that's fine by me. 
It's just nice that people out there are working hard every day to ensure that 
you have choices, isn't it?

--
John Lindsay, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Guelph
Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1   CANADA
Phone: (519) 824-4120 x56074
Fax: (519) 837-2940
Email:  jlind...@uoguelph.ca
Department Web: www.uoguelph.ca/geography/
Personal Web: http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/people/faculty/lindsay.shtml


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] 52°North Announces Winners of S tudent Innovation Prize for Geoinformatics 2010

[Ann Hitchcock (52north)]

Dear List,
52°North is pleased to announce the winners of the 52°North Student Innovation 
Prize for Geoinformatics 2010! This year's jury of prominent members of the GI 
community has decided to award two first prizes. The winners are:
1.

Alexander McKeown and James McHugh from the Commonwealth Scientific and 
Research Organization (CSIRO) ICT Centre in Tasmania, Australia with their 
proposal "Developing an SOS Client for Use by the General Public". The jury was 
impressed by their concept for mainstreaming Sensor Web Enablement technology. 
The proposed project will be a valuable addition to the currently available 
spectrum of SOS clients. The client described will allow the general public to 
consume sensor data provided by SOS instances, thus advancing Sensor Web 
Enablement (SWE) technology into the world of mainstream IT applications.
2.  Daniel Nüst from the Institute for Geoinformatics in Muenster, Germany 
with his proposal " SOS4R - Accessing a Sensor Observation Service from R". He 
impressed the jury with his innovative approach of extending R, an open source 
software environment for statistical computing, to integrate data provided by 
an SOS. The proposed R extension will allow the integration of real-time, as 
well as, historic sensor data sets into geostatistical analysis applications 
via a standardized interface. This will enable R users access to the broad 
range of sensor data sources that support the OGC Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) 
standards. Not only will this create a completely new user community for SWE 
services, it will also enable users with no knowledge of the underlying IT 
architecture to access SOS instances.
In addition to receiving a reward of 2.000,- EUR/prize, the winners have the 
unique opportunity to work together with 52°North students and academic 
personnel to develop their concepts and realize prototypical implementations 
thereof. This collaboration is coupled with a stay at the 52°North Initiative 
in Muenster.
This innovation prize was designed to encourage students to contribute to the 
development and practical realization of innovative concepts in the field of 
geoinformatics. It is being awarded by 52°North GmbH, con terra GmbH, ESRI 
Deutschland GmbH, the International Institute for Geo-Information Science and 
Earth Observation (ITC in Enschede) and the Institute for Geoinformatics at the 
University of Muenster. These institutions work together under the banner of 
the 52°North Open Source Initiative, with the common aim of promoting research 
and education in the field of geoinformatics. A central foundation of 
52°North's activities is the continuous exchange of research topics and 
innovative developments between academia and business. Located in Muenster, the 
52°North Initiative possesses a level of potential which is unique throughout 
Europe when it comes to the development of innovative solutions in the field of 
geoinformation as a whole, as well as in its constituent applications.

We congratulate the winners!


Best regards,
Ann Hitchcock

-
Dipl.-Geogr. Ann Hitchcock
52°North Initiative for Geospatial Open Source Software GmbH

hitchc...@52north.org
http://52north.org

General Managers:
Dr. Albert Remke, Dr. Andreas Wytzisk
Local Court Muenster HRB 10849




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] ILWIS 3.7 is now available!

[Ann Hitchcock (52north)]

Dear list,

The 52°North ILWIS Community is proud to announce that ILWIS 3.7.0 
Open
 is now available for download! In addition to a number of bug fixes and 
general improvements, the ILWIS community has added new vector functionality, 
providing an even more powerful RS and GIS desktop package.

New applications include:

*   PointMapUnion
*   PointMapIntersect
*   PointMapSymetricDifference
*   PointMapDifference
*   PointMapRelate
*   SegmentMapVoronoi
*   SegmentMapTin
*   SegmentMapUnion
*   SegmentMapIntersect
*   SegmentMapSymetricDifference
*   SegmenMapDifference
*   SegmentMapRelate
*   PolygonMapBuffer
*   PolygonMapConvexHull
*   PolygonMapUnion
*   PolygonMapIntersect
*   PolygonMapSymetricDifference
*   PolygonMapDifference
*   PolygonMapRelate

General improvements include:

*   updated SEBS module and HydrologicalFlow module and separate Help Files 
for SEBS,
*   improved WMS - user interface and error handling,
*   improved Postgres database access,
*   a number of bug fixes.

The Help System revamp has been postponed until 3.7.1.

Download as one complete zip 
file
 or in multiple 
files
Find more information about the new vector applications here: 
http://52north.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=359&Itemid=330
ILWIS mailing list: http://www2.52north.org/mailman/listinfo/ilwis

Best regards,
Ann Hitchcock
52°North Initiative for Geospatial Open Source Software GmbH
Martin-Luther-King-Weg 24
48155 Münster, Germany

http://52north.org

General Managers:
Dr. Albert Remke, Dr. Andreas Wytzisk
Local Court Muenster HRB 10849



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Whitebox GAT

[Chris Puttick]

Hi

Really exciting concept, I very much like the idea of letting the user see the 
algorithm; I just differ from other people's views on the use of .net. This is 
effectively a closed technology and one controlled by a company that has no 
interested in the sustainability of the solutions created within it. The use of 
.net also limits the platforms on which the solution can be deployed; 
strategically that is poor i.e. the limiting of choices in one area because of 
the choices in another. I would be interested, I imagine off-list, in your 
reasons for choosing that closed development approach for something you wanted 
to make very open in other ways.

Regards

Chris

- "John Lindsay"  wrote:

> Hello, 
> 
> I wanted to let you know about a new open-source GIS project that I
> have initiated called Whitebox Geospatial Analysis Tools. Whitebox GAT
> is a user-friendly and expendable GIS with significant capabilities
> for spatial analysis. In developing Whitebox GAT I have taken a
> transparent approach to the open-source paradigm. That is, if the user
> would like to know how a particular tool's algorithm works, they need
> not download the source code and wade through the immense code base to
> find the few lines of relevant code. Instead, each tool has a 'View
> Code' button that will bring up the specific code related to the tool.
> Furthermore, they are able to convert the code into other programming
> languages. The idea is to remove some of the barriers that exist
> between the developer community and the user community. My analogy is
> that commercial software is like a locked library where only a few
> select individuals have the right to access the information contained
> within; most open source software packages, at least from the
> viewpoint of the user, is like a public library but there is no
> cataloging system and the books are all written in Greek; Whitebox is
> much more like the Internet. You can download Whitebox GAT from:
> 
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~hydrogeo/Whitebox/index.html
> 
> I'd certainly appreciate any feedback that you may have.
> 
> John Lindsay, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Guelph
> Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1   CANADA
> Phone: (519) 824-4120 x56074
> Fax: (519) 837-2940
> Email:  jlind...@uoguelph.ca
> Department Web: www.uoguelph.ca/geography/
> Personal Web: http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/faculty/lindsay.html
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Chris Puttick
CIO
Oxford Archaeology: Exploring the Human Journey
Direct: +44 (0)1865 980 718
Switchboard: +44 (0)1865 263 800
Mobile: +44 (0)7908 997 146
http://thehumanjourney.net


--
Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document 
Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info 
for more information.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Whitebox GAT

[Arnulf Christl (aka Seven)]

On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 10:45 -0400, John Lindsay wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> I wanted to let you know about a new open-source GIS project that I
>  have initiated called Whitebox Geospatial Analysis Tools. Whitebox GAT
>  is a user-friendly and expendable GIS with significant capabilities
>  for spatial analysis. In developing Whitebox GAT I have taken a
>  transparent approach to the open-source paradigm. That is, if the user
>  would like to know how a particular tool's algorithm works, they need
>  not download the source code and wade through the immense code base to
>  find the few lines of relevant code. Instead, each tool has a 'View
>  Code' button that will bring up the specific code related to the tool.
>  Furthermore, they are able to convert the code into other programming
>  languages. The idea is to remove some of the barriers that exist
>  between the developer community and the user community. 

John, 
this project is highly interesting, also in view of recent tendencies to
transport code across the web to do things on data instead of the other
way round (good for some funny discussions in the OGC WPS working group
too...). 

> My analogy is
>  that commercial software 

If I may interrupt rudely and point out that you probably mean
"proprietary software". We try to use correct terminology to avoid
making people believe that Free and Open Source Software cannot be used
commercially. Just a side note...

> is like a locked library where only a few
>  select individuals have the right to access the information contained
>  within; most open source software packages, at least from the
>  viewpoint of the user, is like a public library but there is no
>  cataloging system and the books are all written in Greek; Whitebox is
>  much more like the Internet. You can download Whitebox GAT from:
> 
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~hydrogeo/Whitebox/index.html
> 
> I'd certainly appreciate any feedback that you may have.

As already said above, this is a highly interesting approach, thanks for
getting it started. 

Best regards, 
Arnulf 

> John Lindsay, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Guelph
> Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1   CANADA
> Phone: (519) 824-4120 x56074
> Fax: (519) 837-2940
> Email:  jlind...@uoguelph.ca
> Department Web: www.uoguelph.ca/geography/
> Personal Web: http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/faculty/lindsay.html
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



-- 
http://arnulf.us
Exploring Space, Time and Mind

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss