<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On 11-Aug-07, at 9:08 PM, RAVI KUMAR wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 128);"><SPAN style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Emphasis is to be on GIS tools and principles, and not on GIS brand labels.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>This is the important part for me, allow me to take it a step further. One of my interests is to see professionals develop their skills for geospatial analysis, mapping, etc. This does not require any particular brand of software. However, professionals who build their skills on top of open source tools have complete freedom, motivation and encouragement in their careers without licensing constraints. As long as the concepts are well taught, they can likely learn (or re-train) to cover any particular instance of geospatial applications in any workplace.<BR><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>In the bigger picture this is a conflict between corporate "standards" and recognising professional choice or capabilities. We know that all too often proposals or contracts require specific software - often without any rationale except comfort by the client. Instead, is it not in our collective best interests to encourage professionals to use the best tool they know to do the job? This takes faith in professional skill sets instead of faith in a particular software package.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Whether the package is open source or proprietary is important from a licensing or philosophical standpoint, but when I look at people who are training to work in the field I'd much rather see them develop/learn tools that they can use for the rest of their careers. Unfortunately we aren't required to bring our tools with us to our jobs to prove our skills - instead we're given tools within the confines of the workplace and expected to know how to use them. That seems reasonable but is very limiting. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Fellow staff that I have worked with in the past have appreciated the option of finding the best tool for the job instead of being forced to use one that they might never have access to again in the future.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Hope this makes some sense. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Tyler</DIV></BODY></HTML>