MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions

[Allan Doyle]

I'm not into self-promotion, but someone involved asked me to please  
post the URL for my  blog article about this...

http://think.random-stuff.org/FrontPage/archive/2005/11/29/mapserver- 
foundation-picking-up-the-pieces

I agree that the names need fixing.

	Allan

On Nov 29, 2005, at 16:34, Ken Boss wrote:

> I agree with both Brian and Tom on the naming issue. I think  
> "MapServer" should continue to mean what it always has.  While I'm  
> not necessarily opposed to naming the Foundation after the software  
> (works for Apache, doesn't it?), attaching the name to an entirely  
> separate software package (one that then looks like the Enterprise  
> edition of that other thing) can only breed disarray.
>
> The names are not engraved in granite anywhere yet, are they? Let's  
> renegotiate.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Ken Boss
>    Minnesota DNR Forestry
>
> "bi ye zheng ming"
> "The most important thing is to use the correct names"
> -Confucius, The Analects
> http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jendres/lunyu/
>
>
>
>>>> "Fischer, Brian" <bfischer at HOUSTONENGINEERINGINC.COM> 11/29/2005  
>>>> 1:23:20 PM >>>
> I think by having two separate software packages with the same first
> name is going to do nothing but confuse everyone that doesn't follow
> this list on a daily basis.  And all of us will end up having to do  
> more
> explaining then needed to educate new users on why they are both  
> called
> MapServer.
>
> I have to agree with Tom.  I say let MapServer stay MapServer and as a
> foundation we request Autodesk to come up with their own unique  
> name for
> the code they just released as Open Source.
>
> If Autodesk really isn't in this to exploit the MapServer name,  
> then it
> shouldn't matter to them if they have to rename their project.  This
> makes the most sense to me and I think it would be the least confusing
> to new users.  The fact is that the two products do not share any  
> of the
> same source code (as of now) and have a very different  
> architecture.  So
> why anyone would want both of them to be called MapServer is confusing
> to me.  The only thing they share right now is they are part of the
> foundation and both are open source projects.
>
> I am not trying to be critical of the names.  I am just trying to  
> think
> what makes the most logical sense for new users and us trying to  
> explain
> the different options to new users.
>
> Brian Fischer
> Houston Engineering, Inc.
> Maple Grove, MN
> (763) 493-4522
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER- 
> USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:54 PM
> To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation thoughts and
> reactions
>
>>> I think the MTSC is
>>> giving up the MapServer name to easy to Autodesk.  When I
>> think ahead
>>> about giving a presentation or trying to sell an "original"
>> MapServer
>>> solution to a potential client, I think it is going to be a
>> challenge
>>> and uphill battle trying to explain the difference in
>> software names
>>> and why I am using one over the other.  I also agree that
>> it makes the
>>> "original" MapServer sound like it may not work as an enterprise
>>> solution when anybody that has worked with MapServer knows
>> that is not
>>> the case.  Try explaining that to a client that has not followed
>>> MapServer for the past 5 years and knows little our nothing
>> about the
>>> software.
>>
>> What can we do to alleviate this problem without telling the
>> MapServer Enterprise folks what they are "allowed" to call
>> their product (which we likely have no right to do).
>
> Can we not just call MapServer, well, MapServer (I was going to say
> 'mapache' but that would be too representative of Apache)?  The
> Enterprise, Pro, whatever uses MapServer can call itself whatever it
> wants (i.e. ms4w, etc.).
>
> ..Tom
>

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org