Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
Very nice thread. This topic once a while comes back on our screens. My two cents. After various years of talks with OS and purists and not, software farms, university departments, etc. from back to white visions, passing through grey, I've pacified with my questions about where is the truth: it is where a solution that solves your needs is. All the rest is personal preference or, worst, hideology. The need can go from a personal scale to a global one, requiring different approaches if we're talking about a self-employed practitioner, a local administration, a multinational farm, or FAO. Forgive me but I think this discussions are non-sense, because, using the first topic, the is no absolute metric to say .NET is worst then Java,C++,or whatelse. In these days I suggested a customer to use ArcGIS Server for their needs. The day before I was configuring Postgresql and Geoserver for another one. Last line. When I discover new softwares being shared I really don't care very much what technology they used to make, I just wonder if it brings new ideas, solutions, etc. that can help our needs. Recently I've set up an algorithm in Python, taking ideas from three different softwares: one was written in C#, one in C++, and one in Java. They were quite different, but each one brought complementary ideas that helped me to solve my problem. This is what I like from software sharing. giovanni 2010/3/26 Brian Russo br...@beruna.org On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Puttick chris.putt...@thehumanjourney.net 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).
[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Lindsay jlind...@uoguelph.ca 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (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 jlind...@uoguelph.ca 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Chris Puttick chris.putt...@thehumanjourney.net 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 jlind...@uoguelph.ca 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
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] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
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)
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:39 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. 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)
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 amesd...@isu.edu To: OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org 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)
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 crschm...@crschmidt.net 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)
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)
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)
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 crschm...@crschmidt.net 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)
Terribly off-topic now, so feel free to stop reading... - Brian Russo br...@beruna.org 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
