[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS-user] Referencias de GRASS 6.3.0 nativo para MS-Windows

Michael Barton michael.barton at asu.edu
Sun Feb 8 10:47:25 EST 2009

On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:44 AM, <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 23:07:35 -0800 (PST)
> From: Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS-user] Referencias de GRASS 6.3.0
> 	nativo para	MS-Windows
> To: grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Message-ID: <828225.60901.qm at web110010.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Markus wrote:
>> Please download the new native winGRASS 6.4.0RC3 in
>> shipping with the OSGeo4W installer:
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo4w/
>> -> Download the OSGeo4W Installer.
>> GRASS is (yet) in the "Advanced Install" section.
>> To see the list of available packages, see at top of
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo4w/wiki/PackageListing
> Hi,
> I (sort of) understand the reasons why it hasn't happened, but we  
> _really_
> need to get the stand-alone WinGrass 6.4 installer built. After all,  
> the
> (co-)primary goal of 6.4.0 is to finally achieve a native Grass for
> MS-windows (along with the new wxGUI), and it seems a bit crazy to be
> nearing the final release and still the thing hasn't even been tested.
> It is a relief the OSGeo4W installer build is there for users to try,
> but it is not the same as double clicking on  
> "install_grass_6.4.0.exe";
> and IIUC there are still wxGUI issues with the OSGeo4W package.
> slightly frustrated,
> Hamish

I'd like to second this. I also want to note that while a multi- 
package over-the-internet installer is perfectly normal in the Linux  
world, it is not the norm either for Mac or Windows. In fact, in many  
settings it can be a problem. For situations in which there is an IT  
division that maintains multiple computers, this kind of installer can  
prevent users from getting the software. The often very conservative  
(for good reason, especially with Windows) IT managers want single  
packages that they can test extensively and then install across  
multiple computers. From their perspective, multi-package installers-- 
especially with software installed over the internet rather than out  
of a box--are potential trouble. This means that end-users (who do not  
have permissions to install software on their own machines) simply  
will not get GRASS or other OSGEO packages.

I'm facing this now. A regional museum is looking for good GIS  
software and is suffering extreme budget cuts. So GRASS seems to be a  
perfect answer. However, all software at the museum is installed by  
the city IT department, and ONLY by the city IT department. They are  
wary of open source software because it doesn't come from a box and  
hence (in their eyes) could be harboring nasty viruses, trojan horses,  
or incompatibilities that could cause problems with their other  
software. Not having single packages that they can test to convince  
themselves and their bosses that it is safe, makes it almost  
impossible to get this installed.

Along these lines, it might be worth thinking about a bit of a  
different model for open source disclaimers. They generally say if  
prominent type that 'hey, you're on your own with this; we're not  
responsible for anything'. I wonder if we could have some kind of a  
'certified malware free' sticker for things acquired from the official  
OSGeo site? Also, in my experience, much OSS is less invasive and less  
apt to cause problems with already installed packages than much  
commercial software. Some text accompanying OSGeo packages prominently  
explaining this might also be helpful (with no guarantees, because  
every system is different).


More information about the grass-dev mailing list