OK, since you asked ;) > Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:31:38 +0200 > From: "Derek Hohls" <dho...@csir.co.za> > Subject: Re: [Qgis-user] Re: New to QGIS, Best solution? > To: <hayamagu...@gmail.com>, <jonathanmou...@warwickshire.gov.uk> > Cc: qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org > Message-ID: <4f4f965a020000d400024...@pta-emo.csir.co.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > I found their conclusion somewhat disappointing. > > > Arc/GIS was launched in 1999, and Arc/INFO (command line predecessor, > equivalent to GRASS) in 1982. GRASS also launched in 1982 and ILWIS launched > in 1984, so how they can say these are "relatively young" does not make sense.
I think the key word there is "generally". I don't think they mean to say that GRASS and ILWIS are young - if you've read the whole paper you'll have seen them mentioning the "maturity and long existence" of GRASS and ILWIS. > Also to keep in mind that the code-base that many of these "younger" packages > build on is much older than their launch dates... Really? Which ones? How much older? The truth is, most of them _are_ a lot younger. Incidentally, this means that papers like this can go out of date very quickly - think how much QGIS has improved since it was written. > I think the "less overall GIS functionality" is due to the smaller user base > and number of contributers, and has nothing to do with age per se. And to put on Paulo's hat: due to having less $money$ spent on development. I don't have a clue how much less, but I'd guess several orders of magnitude at least. Please support QGIS development... ;) The main problems I have with the conclusion are: 1) I can't see that the paper actually provides a case for the statement that FOS software generally has less functionality than "proprietary high-end GIS". 2) They don't define "high-end". There are all sorts of references in the rest of the paper e.g. to "Mapinfo", which imply they just mean any mainstream proprietary GIS. But I suspect that is not what they mean: Mapinfo for example is pretty pathetic without a bunch of additional paid add-ons. Which combinations of proprietary software and addons are required for "high-end" functionality? > My 2c! But I would really like to hear from others on this topic. > > >>> 03/01/12 2:09 PM >>> > The paper can be accessed directly with no subscription here: > http://www.geo.uzh.ch/~sstein/manuscripts/sstein_freegitools_ecoinf2009.pdf > > An interesting read. Highlights from the Conclusion: > > "We report that due to the relative youth of the eight evaluated FOS GIS > projects, they generally tend to have less overall GIS functionality than > proprietary high-end GIS... However, on the positive side they all > provide the basic GIS functions needed in LSE[Landscape Ecology]; they are > easy to customise; a growing number of specialised functions and plug-ins > already exists for specific LSE applications; and there is a growing > community of practitioners willing to freely share their ideas, code and > expertise." Alister _______________________________________________ Qgis-user mailing list Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
