GRASS cannot be used by the U.S. Forest Service?
ront at niwot.CNR.ColoState.EDU
Wed Jun 1 19:47:22 EDT 1994
In article <9405312133.AA12959 at tate.com> you write:
>GRASS but rather are using ARCINFO. I asked why and he said that GRASS
>wouldn't fulfill their needs (no details on why).
I believe it was the lack of database integration (prior to the tools that
have been developed) that led to ARC/INFO being adopted by USFS. (This I
gather from informal discussions, not official policy).
In article <01HCYN4V33OY0007QF at PLAINS.UWYO.EDU> Bill Baker wrote:
>I find it hard to accept that our government will not accept free
>software needed to accomplish their mission, but I'm sure there
>are legal uncertainties.
>I have two questions. First, are there people out there in U.S.
>Forest Service offices who are openly using GRASS? Second, is
>this a legitimate concern on the part of the Forest Service?
>It seems shortsighted to me that skilled people in the Forest
>Service may be discouraged from using much of the free and quite
>useful software available on the net!
> Bill Baker
> bakerwl at uwyo.edu
And I replied to him:
* Just my two cents worth -- "free" ? What of the cost of having someone
* compile and maintain the software. What about training and its costs?
* What of the time (cost) of converting ARC/INFO data to GRASS format? What
* about the cost of new computers -- most districts are on the DG (Data General)
* system, which is not even PC-based, but a dedicated server/slave terminal
* configuration that is proprietary.
* True, the USFS regional office (Lakewood) and Arapahoe/Roosevelt Nat.
* Forest (Ft. Collins) have HP workstations and qualified people.
* The taxpayers (and me) are fed up with government waste, and having duplicate
* GIS systems (after choosing a good, albeit expensive one) can be seen as a
* luxury ala Rosty.
* I would suppose (my guess, not first-hand knowledge, by any means) is that
* the DATABASE integration sold ARC to the USFS, (unless they got a good price,
* like DOI agencies did under the GIS II contract.).
* We will be installing ARC soon, and converting our database to ARC format, and
* adding MUCH to it because of the database abilities (using straight INFO, not
* another third-party database). We will keep our GRASS database and software
* for the time being, so that we will still have a functioning GIS during the
* transition and learning curve phase of this operation. After that, I do
* not know if I can justify the updating/maintaining of a GRASS database just
* for the sake of having it available.
* Ron Thomas (the GIS guy at ROCKY)
Ron Thomas (the GIS guy at Rocky Mountain National Park)
my own opinions, etc., etc...
More information about the grass-user