<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/1/5 Livneh Yehiyam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yehil@rafael.co.il">yehil@rafael.co.il</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><p>I personally will be happy to see FWTOOLS updated at least for major Gdal releases. I find it to be a much simpler way to distribute Gdal to my end users.<br>I agree that OSGeo4W is more complete, but I think that for many users the simplicity of FWTOOLS wins.</p>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br>What do you mean by 'simplicity'? Is this related to the installer which is simpler to use? In this regard would it be much simpler to pick up the required files and distribute that to the end used in a single .zip package?<br>
<br>As far as I know FWTools is based on the development version while OSGeo4W and ms4w are mostly compiled against the stable branches (OSGeo4W may also contain -dev packages though). This may strongly define which one is more suitable for a particual use case. A development version contains the recent features up to the time when the package has been built, but it may also contain a high number of bugs temporarily, which should be fixed until the next stable release.<br>
<br>Best regards,<br><br>Tamas<br><br><br><div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>