Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] discussion or FUD

2009-10-10 Thread René A. Enguehard
I find his views amusing, if misguided. In any case, a troll's opinion 
has about as much weight as the air under the bridge from which he 
crawled out of. No sense antagonizing him, let his ignorance speak for 
itself. As to whether ERDAS products, or even open source ones, are 
viable options: that's always a question of requirements. So arguments 
either way lead to very little. Perhaps we should adopt more of a live 
and let live philosophy, while still promoting the merits of open source 
software? Let everyone have a cape! (Because when everyone's super... 
no-one is!)

Just my $0.02 CAD

Brian Russo wrote:

At first glance, my initial reaction is he's merely misinformed.
However, after reviewing his blog and comments elsewhere; it's not 
just sad - it's outright funny how indoctrinated he is. We use a lot 
of proprietary software because we have a specific community we need 
to interoperate with, but in our case the scenario is not open VS 
closed, it's random assemblage of homebrew/proprietary software VS 
closed but standardized VS open. The latter would be ideal; but while 
interoperability within the open source geostack is good; 
integrating open source with proprietary is still a challenge.
The market is begging for a vendor to pick up the ball 
here...luckily, ERDAS is HERE!
Anyone have pictures of him in spandex and a cape?

 - bri
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Micha Silver wrote:

Guillaume Sueur wrote:

another one here :

how can we have ignore that guy for so long ,

Hey, look on the bright side. In the above post he says he has
many clients already using open source solutions.




Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Next 5 years for OSGeo

2009-09-14 Thread René A. Enguehard
What I'd like to see within the next 5 years would be more analytical 
tools. Most of the projects in OSGeo are very much enablers: they put 
the facilities in place for people to program their own tools. However, 
as I have noticed over the years, people are reluctant to move to open 
source implementations of geospatial software because they are, in 
effect, losing capabilities. Yes, there is still the potential for the 
same capabilities to be put back in, but the fact remains they just 
aren't there. For example, I have never seen any MCDA, PCA, HotSpot 
Analysis, CART or neural network tools in open source packages. If we 
were to produce a comprehensive suite of tools offering the standard 
analytical tools as well as some more advanced ones, then these 
proprietary offerings wouldn't look as appealing. Moreover, if we had a 
consolidated toolset which could be used on a multitude of project we 
would not have to re-invent the wheel for each separate project. 
Currently, proprietary software generally offers advanced analytic 
capability out-of-the-box and open source software does not. I see this 
as a bit of a stumbling block.

Another thing, and I was chatting about this in the lab today, is that 
for particular needs, open source implementations of geospatial software 
generally don't have much to offer. The generic capabilities are there, 
or at least enabled for others to program, but special-needs cases there 
is not much. The example used today in the lab was CARIS HIPS or SIPS. 
What, if anything, exists in the open source community that could come 
close to the processing capabilities of this?

Still another area with a lack of development is 3D and 4D modeling / 
rendering / analysis, something like ESRI ArcGlobe with the 3D Analyst 
package or Myriax Eonfusion. There has been very little work in these 
domains which are of particular interest to me. Perhaps the amount of 
people working in these areas is much smaller than the amount of people 
using something more like general analytic capabilities, but it is an 
area that needs work nonetheless.

The point, and I'd like to make this clear, is not the I'm bemoaning the 
lack of features and projects in the open source community. I think 
OSGeo and the open source community have done a tremendous job and 
should feel, rightfully, proud at what they have accomplished. However, 
when asked what I'd like to see on the agenda for OSGeo, this is it. I'd 
like to see a hard push towards analytics to make the various projects 
we have to offer more directly useful to the average GIS user. In the 
end, it's really about market penetration. The more useful open source 
software is, the better a deal it looks like to outsiders and the more 
people we'll attract.

Please note: I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, IANAL, just 
my two cents, your mileage may vary, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:

Hi everyone, a recent chat I was asked about our vision for OSGeo over
the next 3 and 5 years.  I'd really like to hear thoughts on the matter
and pool a few of the ideas together for further discussions amongst
committees, projects, chapters and the board.  

It's also a good way for the board nominees in the upcoming election to
get a sense of where other members are thinking these days.

Best wishes,

Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: A reminder on terminology

2009-09-04 Thread René A. Enguehard
If you want to be even more granular, you can say closed source 
software as well. There does exist software which has a closed source 
but is not directly proprietary. For instance, parts of the QNX kernel 
code are not shown with the standard source code and to be able to view 
them you must sign some form of an agreement. Even then, you cannot 
modify the code or redistribute, but you are free to submit improvements 
and patches which will then be reviewed and (possibly) integrated. I 
wouldn't call that proprietary software by any stretch since you *can* 
see the source code and patch bugs within the kernel and the rest of the 
code base is entirely open source.

Perhaps it's a bit pedantic, but if we're going for accuracy we might 
not want to lump everything together with proprietary software either.


Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:

just a little reminder that we should be careful in terminology (because
it came up in this thread several times already, this it is not a
specific criticism of your content, Ravi).

The term commercial software [1] does *not* exclude Free and Open
Source software. Therefore it does not make sense to use it to contrast
it to FOSS [2]. It is thus a confusing misnomer. Carelessness of use
works in favor of FUD [3] on Open Source. Ignorance of the underlying
concepts and misusing the term commercial [4] discredits all
undertakings that provide commercial services for Open Source software
(like these [5]).

Please use proprietary software instead. For further details you may
want to scan the OSGeo Advocacy category [7] (it is a Wiki, feel free to
hack and extend it).

Best regards,

[6] 404

Ravi schrieb:

Hi, In India, OpenJUMP has a very good following on windows, as it is
much simpler than some costly commercial flavors of GIS. They can at
best be called as 'passive users', who even do not (care to) know
that a list exists on the internet. Some Indian universities have
started using OpenJUMP for vector GIS. Ravi Kumar

--- On Sat, 22/8/09, Daniel Ames wrote:

From: Daniel Ames Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss]
Open Source Lurkers To: OSGeo Discussions Date: Saturday, 22 August, 2009, 10:24 AM
 Landon, et al.

I'm aware of this phenomenon in the MapWindow community as well. It
is particularly prominent with non-English speaking folks who, for
a number of reasons (mostly described by Bill below) don't feel
comfortable joining the conversation and openly participating in
the project.

I think there is another clear reason for this behavior... they
sometimes just don't know that they are welcome/invited. This might
be more of a pronounced problem for those of us developing
specifically for Windows because Windows users have historically
been told that they are not allowed to participate.

However it's also a phenomenon of GIS in general. When was the last
time that the major GIS software vendor asked it's customers to
actively join in writing documentation, answering forum questions
and - heaven forbid - fixing bugs.

So how do you fix this. Well all I can think is to continually
invite invite invite. Everytime someone posts a forum question,
give an answer and then invite them to answer other people's
questions. When people ask for bug fixes, invite them to fix a big
- or to hire someone to do it.  Any time you get a personal
communication, invite them to do something on the project.

This has helped a lot with our project, and I think we've landed
some awesome project participants (some of whom are likely reading
this now!) by letting them know how much we need them, and inviting
them over and over to participate.

That's my suggestion anyway,


On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Bill Thoen 

I've been a moderator for a commercial desktop mapping forum for
more than 10 years and this behavior is quite common. I think it
has more to do with how people adapt to a social network than it
has to do with anything unique in the Open Source world. Like Chris
 mentioned, the majority of subscribers prefer to lurk below the
public visibility horizon in a way that resembles an iceberg where
only the tip remains above the waterline while the majority of its
bulk lurks below.

People lurk for many of the reasons you suggest, but I think the
most common one is that they don't feel expert enough to contribute
anything useful to a thread, and the risk of saying something
stoopid --in public... and worse, thus revealing to their
GIS/mapping peers the depth of their ignorance-- is just too
embarrassing to contemplate. Especially when compared with the
perceived safety of 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Insurance for contractors?

2009-08-31 Thread René A. Enguehard
Well, the small business I work for has the professional liability type 
of insurance. Additionally, the IEEE offers professional liability 
insurance at a pretty low cost, or so I'm told. I'd imagine many of the 
members subscribe to that form of insurance, otherwise it wouldn't be 
offered. I can't speak to the prevalence in the Open Source sector, but 
in the computer engineering sector this is pretty common.


Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

In the past I've hired some people for contract or consultant work (both open 
source projects and more general stuff) -- generally these people have been 
independent, one-man shops found by word of mouth and reputation, as opposed to 
hiring someone from an agency.

I'm getting pushback now from the administrative side of my company saying that 
any contractor I hire needs to have proof of insurance.  I understand the legal 
reasons for this, but I'm wondering how many of you out there actually have 
business/contractors insurance?  Do companies you work for insist on it, or 
not?  And how many of you are formally set up as LLCs or sole proprietorships 
or such?

[while this is likely a US-centric issue from the hiring side, I'm interested 
in international responses too since I've hired some foreigners as well over 
the years]


Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open File Formats and Proprietary Algorithms

2009-08-24 Thread René A. Enguehard
I agree, primarily because I just got a dataset from the city that was a 
5Gb raster. I know hardrive space is cheap and so is processing power 
but still, it took literally hours to get anything meaningful out of it. 
Picking a more appropriate resolution, better compression and eventually 
switching file formats would have helped immensely but wasn't done since 
the prevailing attitude is that bigger is better. This attitude is 
really the same as in the programming world, where programs keep getting 
slower and slower (in terms of time complexity) but it's deemed okay 
since computers are also getting faster.

I don't think this attitude is going to change any time soon though and 
making some form of standard would simply not work. How could we 
standardize what resolution and compression we should be using on 
specific datasets for specific applications? There are uses we haven't 
even thought up yet, how could we standardize for those future uses?

Just my 0.02$

Bob Basques wrote:


Ok, I'm probably going to get someone irritated, but here goes . . .

Why not approach this from the other end of the spectrum and work at 
making the original files smaller.  Work with the providers to make 
the images smaller in the first place, or at least come up with a 
maximum practical size to work with, I mean if this is the only (or 
biggest reason) for implementing JP2, then getting folks to make the 
smaller deliverables seems like a better long term approach.

Here's my reasoning, we're never (ever?) going to hit the top end on 
how big files ever get, resolution just keeps going up and up, so 
there is always going to be some upper limit that will need to be 
breached somehow.  Working out a proper method for segregating the 
data up front (dare I say it), as some sort of standard (which can be 
adjusted as time passes) will make everything work nicely, then all 
will work with available tools when they are available, if tools to 
handle larger datasets become available, and the community feels there 
is a reason/need that these new larger files need to be handled, then 
they get to change the standard.


 Fawcett, David wrote:

I realize that there are likely not a large number of people who have
the expertise and experience to write this kind of code. 

Is this a project that should be shopped around for funding?  Google
Summer of Code?  A grant from our ~benevolent overlord Google?  Some
other foundation or org interested in open data formats? 

-Original Message-
[] On Behalf Of Michael P. Gerlek
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:36 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open File Formats and Proprietary

 Do you know why there hasn't been a broader adoption of JP2?

Not through lack of trying on my part :-)

I think the two biggest reasons are:

(1) The algorithms for handling large images in memory really are rocket
science, and no one in the FOSS community has gotten the itch
sufficiently bad enough to go and do the work needed inside the existing
open source packages.  Hopefully someday someone will.

Discuss mailing list
Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [postgis-users] pg_routing 1.02

2009-08-06 Thread René A. Enguehard
Open source software is exactly that: open source. That means you can 
take the source and compile it for whichever OS you want, really. For 
Windows things get a bit... involved and you might have to use something 
like Cygwin, but it IS possible. You should probably get in contact with 
David Techer as he would know how exactly to do this regarding pgRouting.

However, you should note that in general people in the open source 
community aren't actively trying to discourage using Windows, we just 
hate having to do anything with/for Windows and so it is rare to get 
Windows binaries. That doesn't mean it's not possible. Porting an open 
source application to a new OS take comparatively very little work to a 
proprietary application. But it's still a heck of a lot of trouble to go 
through for an OS (Windows) which we thoroughly dislike. :)

Ravi wrote:

Hi Listers,
have been trying this on windows for a long time.
I was discouraged 'pl post on the list meant for it' etc..

Now it is a stright 'discourage'.
It again takes me back to a fundamental.. Is opensource and operating system 
centric. Say in India, this is a big road block. Propagation of GIS may be 
encouraged irrespective of OS used.

Ravi Kumar

--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Anton Patrushev wrote:


From: Anton Patrushev
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] pg_routing 1.02
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Date: Thursday, 6 August, 2009, 5:05 PM
Hi Ishwari,

The links to download pg_routing 1.02 windows binaries

in the do not work. Is there an
alternate location where these files can be downloaded

I'm afraid no. Windows binaries were maintained by David
Techer only.
Actually we don't recommend to install it on Windows.

postgis-users mailing list

  Yahoo! recommends that you upgrade to the new and safer Internet Explorer 
Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Patent for feature of paper map.

2009-08-05 Thread René A. Enguehard
I suspect they might be applying for the patent but in for quite a 
surprise when it gets rejected. Features for maps would be very tricky 
to patent and, more importantly, not in the interest of the general 
public. As such the patent applications would probably get rejected. 
Would we really want people patenting things like projections, north 
arrows, scale bars or legends? I don't think it would be productive and 
suspect any patent office in its right mind would see it the same way.

Patents were created to help people protect their ideas for a length of 
time so they could reap the rewards of their work and refine it without 
fear of being copied or undercut. This works very well for many things 
but fails miserably for conceptual things like maps or layouts for books 
or posters. This is why many patent offices now require people to patent 
systems rather than things. I don't see how a wrap-around map could 
be explained as a system.


Landon Blake wrote:

The latest issue of the ACSM Bulletin had an interesting article about 
a map matrix that wraps around the edge of a paper map. It seems the 
company that is using this feature of hard copy map design is applying 
for a patent. I didn’t even think you could get a patent a feature of 
a paper map. It got me wondering who holds the patent on the use of a 
north arrow and scale.

At any rate, here is the article if you are interested in reading it:

I couldn’t find the patent application, or I would have posted a link 
to it. Let me know if you have any comments.


*Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against 
defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader 
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, 
please notify the sender immediately.

Discuss mailing list

Discuss mailing list

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mapguide credential

2009-08-02 Thread René A. Enguehard

I'm not sure I understand the question...

Frans Thamura wrote:

hi all
anyone have mapguide server presentation or geoserver, and their credential



Discuss mailing list

[OSGeo-Discuss] XML to GML XSLT

2009-06-10 Thread René A. Enguehard

Hi all,

I've been working on getting an XML document to transform into a GML 
document. Currently I'm running into two issues:

1. How do we define the XSD rules for a string node with an attribute? 
ie: point dimension=212.12, 34.34/point
   Currently all I have found relates to simple text nodes or simple 
attribute nodes, but not mixed ones.

2. How do we get XSD to play nice with the gml: prefix? I want to use 
gml:Point and gml:pos but the XSD file doesn't validate.

Some sample XML:

?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
user xmlns:gml=;
   gml:pos dimension=2-97.7452090, 30.2687350/gml:pos

The XSD file for the code (so far):

?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8?
   xsd:import namespace=
   xsd:element name=user type=userType /

   xsd:complexType name=userType
   xsd:element name=name type=xsd:string /
   xsd:element name=gml:Point type=gml:Point / ???

Thanks for your help,
René A. Enguehard

Discuss mailing list