<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html style="direction: ltr;">
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body style="direction: ltr;" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<pre>On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Paolo Cavallini <<a
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user">cavallini at faunalia.it</a>> wrote:
...
><i> Unfortunately, it seems that both qgis and grass devs are mainly
</i>><i> concentrated on their core sw, with limited attention to the interaction
</i>><i> between the two (eg the qgis-plugin-grass does not have a dedicated dev,
</i>><i> and in grass a lot of dev effort has been put to implement a new UI,
</i>><i> replicating many functionalities already usable in qgis (also for grass
</i>><i> layers).
</i>><i> I would therefore respectfully suggest devs, form the users perspective,
</i>><i> to consider concentrating on the best of each world, reducing the
</i>><i> duplication of efforts, and improving the (already good) interaction
</i>><i> between the two programs.
</i>
So QGIS should stay a geodata viewer and GRASS continue to be the
analytical GIS :)
Markus
</pre>
<blockquote cite="mid:1241427395.4327.21.camel@vertical" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
In my view, the special strength of QGIS is in its simplicity. Today,
everyone and her grandmother want to have access to maps. Any computer
user can get started in QGIS with just a few hours of instruction. <br>
And then the plugin infrastructure gives more advanced/curious users a
door into almost everything that gis analysis could require. So, I
agree with Markus and Paulo that QGIS should stay, on the surface, an
easy to use viewer, editor, and map designer for GIS data, with the
"heavy lifting" done thru plugins to other software.<br>
<br>
Micha<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>