INTRO:<br>
oh I could have a field day with this thread, and I think i will.
I just cant pass on this opportunity. I didnt want to start a
thread like this, but Its rather lengthy, so grab a comfortable
seat, a cup of joe, and be glad you use GRASS. Since there
was some
digression from the ArcView vs GRASS topic, i too shall digress.
If you are a blind fan of
ESRI, dont read this, you will just make silly responses. These are not
petty issues. My criticism is harsh at times, but please
read through this to see where i am coming from and why i have the
opinions that i do. These are enormous amounts of money being
paid for a now poor product. Dont perceive this as
"bashing" of ESRI, but rather just a taste of the sincere and genuine
experiences I have
personally experienced with ArcMap/ESRI in a professional, deadline
driven environment. This is why I was driven to
find alternatives such as GRASS. And I am so thankful that I did.<br>
<br>
There is one word that describes ESRI, and that word is GREED. There
are many words that describe GRASS: excellence, refined code,
dedication to producing a quality product, pride in the product,
multi-platform compatibility, quick bug fixes, stability, innovation, free,
intrigue to new users, relief for users of ESRI, and best of all: an
embracing and supportive community and author(s). (I salute you Markus)<br>
<br>
HISTORY:<br>
ESRI had a good thing with workstation arc/info and the extra
modules. the command line was king. i learned GIS on A/I
workstation on UNIX. THose were the days when, if there was an
erroneous result in the analysis or data creation, it was the
user/operator's fault. On the ArcMap platform, if the result is
erroneous, its advised to first check that the software algorithm isnt
bugged, because I have too often found this to be the case. (I could cite dozens of examples, a recent one i will say
is the bugged HPGN/HARN projection in ArcMap's on the fly projection,
and physical projection of data in ArcCatalog)<br>
<br>Around the turn of the millennium, with the advent of ArcMap, ESRI
completely fell
to pieces in the quality of their product and the quality and
availability of their tech support. They sold out to windows,
they turned their back on the very operating system that helped
their software be stable and crunch on analytical data for hours on
end without bombing out. They ticked off a large portion of their
existing GIS user base when doing this. They price gouged the
community.
They wove their software in to government agencies, large corporations,
and the trickle down effect was felt as many other businesses had to
now cater to the proprietary "datamodel specific" ESRI way of
things. Now even if other companies and people want to use,
better, open source, alternative software, they cant without major
hassle, because final
products are being asked to be delivered in a "geodatabase" fomat which
as far as i know, only ESRI software can write. I beg of ANYONE
in the open source community to create a program that can read/write to
geodatabases (microsoft access databases with spatial component).<br>
<br>
BROKEN COVERAGE DATA MODEL ON WINDOWS NETWORKS:<br>
How in the world do they justify the SAME cost of their software that
ran on UNIX on Windows? in the UNIX days, everything was
expensive, the UNIX OS, the UNIX Hardware, the UNIX Administrators... a
$9,000 Arc/Info fell right into the price scheme... and it
WORKED. I personally experienced tons and tons of software
bombouts/errors when building or doing overlays across the
network. When they ported arc/info workstation to Windows with
WINNT around 1996, it was BROKEN right off the bat, yet the prices were
the same. A technician
later told me, "You cant build, overlay or do anything that rebuilds
topology across a pure windows network... because a windows server does
not return the data specifically like a UNIX server does. it
messes up workstation, and causes it to bomb out. our
solution: COPY THE DATA LOCALLY." i said this is
unacceptable. networks have advantages. especially
centralization and backing up. in a department of many, local
copying of data is a night mare. this was hardly a "solution", this was
BROKEN. I said "well how can this be? how can this product
be sold as it is, if the windows networks dont work with the coverage
data model???" the response, "It never worked. We never
tested it in a pure windows networked environment. this came to
light after it
was in production by other companies". I was astonished and
disappointed. this was the beginning of the end. due to
this and the open nature of reading/writing shapefiles, ESRI needed a
new, proprietary data model that only THEY could write/read.
Enter the Geodatabase.<br>
<br>
LICENSE CONFUSION, BAIT AND SWITCH:<br>Here's just one example of
the mess they created. Now the young GIS useres will not
appreciate this if they have joined GIS post year 2000. In the
"good old days", a common software combination was workstation
arc/info and arcview. workstation for data creation and analysis, and
arcview
for cartography. some people were paying maintenance on
workstation and arcview. if i recall right, thats 3000$ &
500$ respectively PER YEAR. When ESRI came out with ARCmap,
arcview was now just a subset of arcmap arc/info. there was no
need
to maintain two separate licenses for the sofwares because one was just
a subset of another. Their licensing got majorly screwed up, so
much to the point that when you asked a sales representative to explain
it, the response was "we are confused about it too". what
kind of a response if that from sales reps who you are paying MASSIVE
amounts of money EVERY single year??? Anyhow, there was no longer
a need for arcview if you owned arcmap arc/info. would they
credit you? would they allow the maintenance to be applied elsewhere?
no, I personally was laughed at for even ASKING such a question by
them, even though after the bait and switch a credit is the least they
could have done. but no, they wanted more money. I had such a
horrible experience at a local level with
them that i took my issues to the east-coast sales manager. we
hashed things out, i expressed sincere and genuine dissatisfaction with
ArcMap, and all the bugs and plotting problems and production
inhibiting issues in arcmap. His big solution: "WAIT till
the next
release(s) to fix the problems". i wondered "well why have i been
paying for this software for 4 years???" its really beta
software, where the users have to find the bugs and report them to
ESRI. Not to mention that with the immense complexity of ArcMap
(i mean the context "menu" for the main "menu" is so big, it scrolls
off a 21" monitor!), the tech support quality and availability
diminished
to the point where I would not get calls back for DAYS. by then,
my deadline was missed. i would have to find work arounds.
a VERY common statement from ESRI was, "well ask the community if we
cant get to you fast enough, and post to our forums". I"m
thinking our organization is not paying $10,000 PER YEAR to go seek out
the answer on line. we are paying this money to talk to techs who
are knowledgeable and can solve the problems quickly. thats how
it
was prior to arcmap. immediate responses and problems solved for
the user.<br>
<br>
EMBEDDING ESRI INTO AGENCIES AND BIG BUSINESS:<br>there is no
excuse
for the complete garbage software that ESRI has out
now nearly 6 years into this software's life, and over a half dozen
release of software versions. The users are the beta testers, the
users are the de-buggers, the users are the victims. ESRI sits
back collecting millions if not billions in yearly maintenance, working
on their own schedule, and fixes stuff as they see fit. Try a
lenghty editing session in ArcMap, and try to keep the software from
crashing. Good luck. The
personal touch and care for customers is gone. Unless you are a
government agency, then I heard that they get taken out to lunches
frequently by ESRI reps and treated great. THis makes sense
because if they can weave their software in to government agencies,
then other companies working for them/with them have to be ESRI
compatible. not "open GIS" data exchange formats, but rather the
proprietary Geodatabase. An
example is agencies asking for data in Geodatabase format and maps in
MXD format. this is unacceptable!<br>
<br>
SYNONYMS:<br>
Sadly, much like PC's are synonymous with MicroSoft, GIS is synonymous to
ESRI. THis is truly a shame. Monopolies are bad for the
consumer. Monopolies are bad for GIS. ESRI is bad for GIS.<br>
<br>
ADMISSION OF MESS:<br>As of this year ESRI redid their license
scheme (and as i read in this
thread, no you dont have to buy a dongle every year, you have to
buy the "maintenance package" every year). ESRI must realize that
the liensing is out of control. they simplified it by putting
modules we used to pay for into the main license just this year, 5
years later after the software re-write and re-licensing. they
made it
sound like this stuff was free now. however our maintenance every
year is still the same price as they jacked up the price on the main
items.<br>
<br>
BIND ESRI SUPPORTERS:<br>
When this type of frustration is vented in ESRI forums the response is
"stop whining". There is plenty of justification for this
disgruntled-ness. ESRI pulled the "bait and switch"
maneuver. They had a solid product for 30 years, then FORCED the
community to move to ArcMap, dumped UNIX OS's, and sold out to
windows. This is my career they are messing with, this is my
livelyhood, this is my future. New users do not understand.
They just live with the horrible bugs, and keep on clicking their way
through GIS without a solid understanding of the data and
analysis. They dont realize the enormous price that one pays for
the software initially AND every subsequent year there after.
They dont realize what quality GIS was. When deadlines and be
met, and bugs are the reason why, thre is plenty of justification to
vent this frustration. I have to use this cruddy software, or
find a new job or even career. As consultants, we have to be
compatable with our clients.<br>
<br>
RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS THREADS:<br>
ArcView doesnt just "run better under windows"... it ONLY runs on
windows, provided we are talking about ArcMap ArcView. ArcView
3.X used to run on UNIX and was so solid. People who can really
speak to this issue are the ones who were working with GIS prior to
ArcMap's existance. The fact it runs on windows is not a
plus. This is the reason arcmap can not plot large images because
of the file capture function is relied upon by windows. where the
old arcview (3.X) used an ESRI file capture format and was nearly
flawless. You have to put your map plot quality to poor if you
are working with large images you want to plot on paper or the data
gets dropped off the map. As per ESRI, they now rely on the
windows subsystem to handle the file capture and print. Which is
one reason why now they include their "arcpress" module, so that the
maps can be rasterized for plotting capabilities. before this,
their business partner would scour the forums looking for people with
plotting problems and solicit them for their $3000 plotting
"solution". ESRI probably owns the "business partner" as
well. this is unacceptable. plotting maps and large images
should be an "out of the box" function for $9,000 software.<br>
<br>
Dylan and Rich have extremely valid points in my. they capture
the essence of this whole issue. Very well stated by the both of
you.<br>
<br>
Rich captures the essence with this, " I found too many people who "knew" GIS because they knew how to<br>
operate the program controls. My response was that teaching someone how to
<br>
use a word processor did not make her a writer; teaching someone how to use a<br>
graphics program does not make him an artist. There's a huge difference<br>
between knowing how to do things with a computer application and knowing what
<br>
to do to get the proper results."<br>
<br>
Dylan is right on as well... I couldnt agree more with what he wrote.
The dangers of point and clicking your way through a map or
analysis, without understanding what is really going on can be disastrous. <br>
<br>
An example is someone i encountered who said their experience with GIS
was "spatial analyst". This was peculiar to me, because they
were asking about BASIC data creation procedures. This indicates
that they can click their way through the "analysis", but dont
understand how the data was created or how it works. You can run
the "analysis" but have absolutley NO CLUE about the data itself, or
how to create it??? Eventually even a monkey couldl press all the
right buttons to get the analysis to work.<br>
<br>
GRASS ROCKS!:<br>
GRASS is awesome. Its capabilities amaze me and intrigue me to
keep learning about it. Quantum GIS is awesome. Mapserver
is awesome. these three softwares on a Linux platform, have the
ability to replace Arc/Info, ArcView and ArcIMS respectively. And
its already happening. I saw an ArcView 3.X script that writes
out a Mapserver File. people are catching on. the community
is becoming aware. <br>
<br>
I should write a book or large composition. I have had so much
interaction with ESRI tech support, and sales reps that i know more
than they want me to. I have so many stories and real life experiences
with ESRI that it would be enough to turn many people away.
After much prying from tech support and sales, I see the full
picture. I would not be surprised if this privately owned company
is shoving out tons and tons of copies of their software to continue to
be the monopoly, and then suddenly go public and cash out and leave the
mess for the shareholders. this is a common trend with private
tech companies.<br>
<br>
This is just some of my experiences. one good thing the horrible
ESRI
software did for me, it drove me to GRASS, QGIS and Mapserver. i
thank them for that. I love Linux and the next logical step was
GIS on linux. I know most all of you on this thread are of the
same feeling that GRASS is awesome. I was so relieved to find
GRASS. it revived my hope in GIS. It brought me back in the
game. I am so thankful that all the developers are continuing to
work on GRASS and make it the best out there.<br>
<br>
Top Accolades go out to all the open source guys, developers especially
but also the users. this movement is too strong to die or be
squashed by inferior, proprietary software. Let ESRI feel the squeeze. Let the revolution
begin.<br>
<br>
<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/11/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Rich Shepard</b> <<a href="mailto:rshepard@appl-ecosys.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">rshepard@appl-ecosys.com
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Trevor Wiens wrote:<br><br>> The common reply to this is that ArcView runs better under Windows and is<br>> easier to use, so it is worth it to buy a license and have no control over<br>> your software. To this, I would suggest that the appropriate counter is
<br>> that if users want Windows integration and ease of use, they should buy<br>> Manifold GIS, for 1/10 the cost of ArcView and is considerably more<br>> powerful than the base ArcView product.<br><br> If I may be permitted peripheral comments again, I have two to offer.
<br><br> I first learned of GIS in 1987 when we used it at the state agency where I<br>was a technical program manager. I quickly learned that most people wanted<br>pretty maps, not deep technical analyses. I think that's still the case in
<br>many situations: make the map sufficiently visually attractive and no one<br>questions the quality of the data.<br><br> One problem with "ease of use" is the emphasis on the wrong aspect. When I<br>was more heavily involved with GIS than I am now (my current business focus
<br>being on the application of approximate reasoning models to environmental<br>issues), I found too many people who "knew" GIS because they knew how to<br>operate the program controls. My response was that teaching someone how to
<br>use a word processor did not make her a writer; teaching someone how to use a<br>graphics program does not make him an artist. There's a huge difference<br>between knowing how to do things with a computer application and knowing what
<br>to do to get the proper results. I've seen this mis-match with a lot of folks<br>who do multiple T-tests rather than ANOVA on their data because they don't<br>understand statistics, but they have a computer application that "does"
<br>statistics for them.<br><br> Your analogy is very pertinent: understand what you're doing before you use<br>a tool that takes away the tedium of calculation.<br><br>Carpe weekend,<br><br>Rich<br><br>--<br>Richard
B. Shepard,
Ph.D.
| Author of "Quantifying Environmental<br>Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic"<br><<a href="http://www.appl-ecosys.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.appl-ecosys.com</a>>
Voice: 503-667-4517
Fax: 503-667-8863<br><br></blockquote></div><br>