
I just want to add a few comments to the discussion on grass vs. arcinfo.

I think it is clear from this discussion that GRASS currently has several
things which should be improved or added. But it has also a lot of
superb things that you won't find in other GIS systems.
Also my opinion is that arc-info definitely is not everything-solving system
and those folks who think so will understand this later.
I think the best way is to keep both systems (or if possible more systems) 
to combine the best things from them in solving your specific problems.
And for GRASS should be the best to build those its parts which are poor
in other systems and in such manner make it attractive for GIS users.
But a communication with other GIS systems must be easy and 
more straightforward.
This can keep GRASS alive for many years.
Probably there is not enough money to build a complex GIS (like e.g. arc-info)
but I can imagine myself a totally new next generation system (3-dimensional,
dynamic GIS with expert system features based on OO technology). This would
be a great challenge for all commercial GIS sector :-)

Jaro

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaro Hofierka
Dept. of Cartography, Geoinformatics & Rem. Sensing
Comenius University
842 15 Bratislava          E-mail: hofierka@devin.fns.uniba.sk
Slovakia                           hofierka@geoinfo.fns.uniba.sk
------------------------------------------------------------------------

