GIS experts : What about GRASS ? No mention of it. thanks, -balu On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Nick Floersch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi! A few replies... > > --- > Nicholas Floersch (pr. Floor-sh) > Stone Environmental, Inc. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vermont Area Group of Unix Enthusiasts > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Tomczak > > > > There is a huge amount of money being spent on > > licensing for the http://www.esri.com/ ArcGis software. We are pretty > > much locked into this software, and a lot of budgeting and development > > is determined by the development and release cycle of the ArcGiS > > Software; [...] However, a huge drawback of the ArcGis software, is the > 10 > > character limit to the length of the names of the table columns. > > I assume you mean the limitations of field names in Shape files? I have no > problem creating attribute fields with names such as > ABC123DEF456GHI789JKL012 in File Geodatabases, Personal Geodatabases, or in > our various SDE databases. > > > We are also completely dependent on the Microsoft SQL Server Databases. > (Some > > other agencies are dependent on the Oracle.) > > With ArcSDE v9.3 we finally have support for PostGreSQL and PostGIS as the > backend, instead of Oracle or MSSQL. I have personally setup a PostGiS-SDE > database and it worked quite nicely. It won't save you money on ESRI > licensing, but you could save money on MSSQL licensing. > > > All of the software mentioned is expensive and argumentatively worth the > money spent. > > I do not argue that the ArcGIS Desktop software and Server software are the > most advanced packaged GIS solutions available. I wish I could say that some > open-source package such as MapServer or GeoServer had ESRI lagging behind, > but they don't - not in capabilities and features. But the prices are > absolutely ludicrous. A state-government license for ArcGIS Server > Enterprise Advanced is $22k, plus something like $10k a year in maintenance. > Think that's a lot? Well, the commercial license is closer to $40k last I > checked. So the state can get half-off... but half-off-of-a-lot is still a > lot. A single seat commercial license for ArcINFO Workstation costs us $4k a > year. Depending on the level of user, however, there are alternatives... > some users only view data, and there are free programs that are great for > viewing and browsing data - from ESRI and others. But the prices ESRI > charges are still way way too much - especially given the sh*tty quality of > their software... I mean yes they have the most features and capabilities of > anything out there, but their written/based on .NET and crash and burn all > of the time - sometimes when you are in the middle of processing stuff, and > sometimes when you step away and are doing nothing... really poor quality. > ArcGIS Server and SDE are somewhat better than the desktop stuff, but they > are still buggy as hell, and you still pay a premium for the buggy software. > I use ESRI stuff every single day - we live and die by it here - but we > still find it hard to love. > > > The one that I am the most concerned with is the Microsoft Office 2007 > > push, and its implications. Starting with the assets that MS Office > > brings to the table (we do not need Office 2007 for this) is the huge > > amount of MS Access databases already in existence that depend on > > Access > > to be usable. Next is the ability to connect to ODBC databases. But > > the most important feature is the ability to export tables in a variety > > of formats. The ones I need, in particular, are MS Excel and DB IV > > (for > > the ArcGis and ArcMap applications). I would prefer to work with Open > > Office, and I usually do, accept that Open Office cannot export Excel > > and DB IV tables. > > OO.o can't export to XLS? I never realized that - that's incredible. Given > all of the Perl libraries I've seen for creating XLS files, and working with > them, I am amazed that nobody has put this functionality into OO.o. > > > Now for the huge liabilities of the MS Office 2007 migration. It is > > outrageously expensive, and the State is in the middle of a huge > > purchase of licenses. The sales people as Microsoft are probably > > claiming that they are offering a huge discount on this software that > > has had been excessively marked up. The Office 2007 software is so hard > > to use, it is guaranteed to cost excessive amounts of money across the > > board for labor. > > I would like to say that I find Office 2007 not really all that hard to > use. It took me a few days of fumbling through documents, all the while > getting work done, but just more slowly, and then I felt like I was working > smoothly. People fear change, but I think in this case, the question of the > changed interface should not be that which is feared - the budget to make > the license conversion/upgrade is much worse. > > > Vista was such a blunder, and Windows XP 64 bit is only available in > > beta, so all workstations are running 32 bit XP OSs on 64 bit hardware. > > Are you saying that the state bought beta versions of XP 64-bit? That's > odd. I run XP x64 as my desktop OS at work every day, with all of the ESRI > software and lots of other stuff (Office 2007, Firefox, Dia, iTunes, Nmap .. > a wide range of software) and it is a very stable and responsive system - > relatively speaking, for Windows. If you can upgrade from those beta > licenses it would be worth it... > > > The software, and development software, are basically a blunder. All > > the applications are 32 bit, and we develop software for a 64 bit > > servers on a 32 bit software running on 64 workstations. Now to add to > > the mix, is Microsoft's persistence in using a new version of files > > that are proprietary "latest version" for it's default save feature. The > > State has bought into converting all documents to MS Office 2007 > > proprietary XML, hook line and sinker. This will cost even more > > excessive labor and cause huge incompatibility problems. > > Yeah - that's a silly decision. Until everyone is using Office 2007, you > should be sticking with the old file format. > > > Microsoft servers software is expensive, > > exceptionally unreliable, and constantly needs to be rebooted, but our > > network staff would never admit to that. > > I've found Server 2003 and Server 2008 to be very stable operating systems. > I've also found SQL Server 2003, 2005, and 2008 to be very stable and not > require much attention once setup. I will concede that it is annoying to > have to reboot the OS to apply a patch or update... but maybe the > instability in your server systems is tied also to hardware or running > environment? I've heard some horror stories about the server rooms at the > state. I'm not saying I love the MS server environment - but I will admit > that it has been stable for us and our 20-some-odd servers of varying types. > > > The constant expense of > > licenses causes excessive travel. Using Linux and Java would allow > > people to do work from home, just as easily as from the office. > > Well - I've heard that the state does not embrace the concept of a VPN. As > such, yeah, people travel way too much. If the state would open up a VPN for > office workers to use Remote Desktop to their XP or Vista machines, people > could easily work from home... like they do at our office. > > > And Finally, it seems that there is no way > > that I can influence these Microsoft Software purchase decisions > > without risking my job. > > Yes - at this point, nobody wants to stick their head up for fear of it > getting plucked off. And pushing for a non-Microsoft strategy would seem > like a very dangerous path, even if it was a good path to take. Pity. > > Good luck! > > This communication, including any attachments, is solely for the > confidential use of the person(s) named above. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete/destroy the original. Any reader other than the intended recipient is > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of > this message is strictly prohibited. >
