Jonathan, I forgot to ask you: do you have any statistics/guesses about the underlying operating system ?
It would also be interesting to know how much "cloud" technology is used (AWS & C.). Cheers On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:43 PM Jonathan Moules <jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote: > > Hi List, > Some of you may have seen my blog post on the OSGeo-Discuss list about > which mapping servers are the most deployed. For those who haven't seen > it, QGIS Server has about 60 public deployments (1% of all of them), and > it serves 11,924 datasets (0.5% of all public geospatial > WMS/WFS/WCS/WMTS datasets). > > Potentially controversial here and I appreciate it's not a competition, > but given the low uptake of QGIS Server compared to other Open Source > offerings (GeoServer: 964 deployments, 963,603 datasets; MapServer: 544 > deployments, 389,709 datasets), is QGIS Server something the grant > program should be funding? There are three Server proposals totalling > €10,000, 22% of the fund. > > Now, before you get the pitchforks out(!), please consider the following: > > * Zero sum game - Any money spent on QGIS Server cannot be spent on QGIS > Desktop. (The grants mostly aren't things that will improve the shared > QGIS Core). (This reasoning also follows through to OSGeo funds). > > * Multiple solutions - Open Source (and OSGeo) already has a very > healthy ecosystem of mapping servers - does it need another one? > > * Limited number of users benefited - I don't have stats for it, but > QGIS Desktop is probably the most popular Open Source Desktop GIS, and > is certainly going to have many orders of magnitude more users than QGIS > Server. > > * Playing to your strengths - QGIS' strength is it's Desktop and it's > generally good practice to play to your strengths. > > > So given the above, and that QGIS is already "winning" as an Open Source > Desktop (great job!), I'd like to suggest it's not a good idea to dilute > the limited resources by spending them on QGIS Server. Instead it seems > that far more people would benefit if that money was spent on Desktop, > especially the bug fixing programme. > > Or alternatively, given the "Unique Selling Point" of QGIS Server is its > integration with QGIS Desktop, those resources could be used to further > improve interoperability with GeoServer/MapServer/deegree/etc. Those are > all successful mature OSGeo projects that excel at serving maps, have an > architecture designed for it, and already have huge install bases. > > TLDR: QGIS excels at being a Desktop, and I'd like to suggest it should > play to its strengths and focus its limited funds there to benefit the > most users. > > I shall now retreat to my bunker. :-) > > Cheers, > Jonathan > > Note: The above only applies to the Grant program and funding; how > developers wish to spend their time, and on which projects is of course > their own prerogative. > > (Disclosure: I have no horse in this race; I don't run or administer any > mapping servers, but I have done GeoServer in the past.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer -- Alessandro Pasotti QCooperative: www.qcooperative.net ItOpen: www.itopen.it _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer