I'm not into self-promotion, but someone involved asked me to please
post the URL for my blog article about this...
http://think.random-stuff.org/FrontPage/archive/2005/11/29/mapserver-
foundation-picking-up-the-pieces
I agree that the names need fixing.
Allan
On Nov 29, 2005, at 16:34, Ken Boss wrote:
I agree with both Brian and Tom on the naming issue. I think
"MapServer" should continue to mean what it always has. While I'm
not necessarily opposed to naming the Foundation after the software
(works for Apache, doesn't it?), attaching the name to an entirely
separate software package (one that then looks like the Enterprise
edition of that other thing) can only breed disarray.
The names are not engraved in granite anywhere yet, are they? Let's
renegotiate.
Regards,
--Ken Boss
Minnesota DNR Forestry
"bi ye zheng ming"
"The most important thing is to use the correct names"
-Confucius, The Analects
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jendres/lunyu/
"Fischer, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/29/2005
1:23:20 PM >>>
I think by having two separate software packages with the same first
name is going to do nothing but confuse everyone that doesn't follow
this list on a daily basis. And all of us will end up having to do
more
explaining then needed to educate new users on why they are both
called
MapServer.
I have to agree with Tom. I say let MapServer stay MapServer and as a
foundation we request Autodesk to come up with their own unique
name for
the code they just released as Open Source.
If Autodesk really isn't in this to exploit the MapServer name,
then it
shouldn't matter to them if they have to rename their project. This
makes the most sense to me and I think it would be the least confusing
to new users. The fact is that the two products do not share any
of the
same source code (as of now) and have a very different
architecture. So
why anyone would want both of them to be called MapServer is confusing
to me. The only thing they share right now is they are part of the
foundation and both are open source projects.
I am not trying to be critical of the names. I am just trying to
think
what makes the most logical sense for new users and us trying to
explain
the different options to new users.
Brian Fischer
Houston Engineering, Inc.
Maple Grove, MN
(763) 493-4522
-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation thoughts and
reactions
I think the MTSC is
giving up the MapServer name to easy to Autodesk. When I
think ahead
about giving a presentation or trying to sell an "original"
MapServer
solution to a potential client, I think it is going to be a
challenge
and uphill battle trying to explain the difference in
software names
and why I am using one over the other. I also agree that
it makes the
"original" MapServer sound like it may not work as an enterprise
solution when anybody that has worked with MapServer knows
that is not
the case. Try explaining that to a client that has not followed
MapServer for the past 5 years and knows little our nothing
about the
software.
What can we do to alleviate this problem without telling the
MapServer Enterprise folks what they are "allowed" to call
their product (which we likely have no right to do).
Can we not just call MapServer, well, MapServer (I was going to say
'mapache' but that would be too representative of Apache)? The
Enterprise, Pro, whatever uses MapServer can call itself whatever it
wants (i.e. ms4w, etc.).
..Tom
--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
