On 07/31/2012 02:48 PM, julia harrell wrote: > I did not suggest that *all* the maps would not be as 'pretty'. I > said that even if *some* of them weren't as pretty, that they'd still > be superior products if they included information on how they were > created and the design principles used, etc. > > I think we are all aware that it is (for the moment) still a bit more > of a challenge to get really beautiful cartographic output from some > (but not all) open source GIS software products. > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Barry Rowlingson > <b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM, julia harrell <julia.harr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> This would make it a superior product - even if >>> some of the maps aren't quite as 'pretty' as those in the ESRI map >>> book :) >> >> Why wouldn't they be as pretty? You're exhibiting the very prejudice >> I'd like to exterminate! :) >> >> Actually it's probably an effect caused by weight-of-numbers and >> there being more professional carto types using commercial software.
...it's "proprietary" software. The term "commercial" software is misleading. http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Commercial_Software Thanks for your patience with me... Arnulf >> Barry >> >> -- >> blog: http://geospaced.blogspot.com/ >> web: http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~rowlings >> web: http://www.rowlingson.com/ >> twitter: http://twitter.com/geospacedman >> pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/spacedman > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Exploring Space, Time and Mind http://arnulf.us _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss