[Board] Writing up OSGeo priorities

[Jachym Cepicky]

Hi,

I have similar relationship to both, osgeo4w and osgeo-live projects,
that means, I do not use them extensively, but I know about them and I'm
glad, they are at hand (and working), when ever I need them (< 1× per year).

To me, important OSGeo-live distribution is not the disc  itself, but
the iso image, which can be used at any operating system together with
some virtual machine interface, when organizing workshops. Then you have
guaranteed uniform platform, where you can be sure, everything works.

OSGeo4W is important distribution channel for "our products" and since
most of GIS software users on any platform are GIS software "users" and
not "hackers", it is important to provide easy way to install and setup
the software on Windows platform as well.

Having said that, I think, that OSGeo-live and OSGeo4W are projects of
similar impact and importance to me. If I should make decision which
would lead to support one over another, I would prefer some balanced way.

I do not assume, we will have to make some kind of the decision (support
one xor other) in the future. It is clear, that everything depends on
the community, on their needs and activity as well. I just wanted to
express my feelings about this.

During the hangout, OSGeo4W was forgotten a bit and I think, it is
important and successful part of OSGeo community environment (or, seems
to be here from the outside world).

Jachym

Dne 2.3.2013 10:11, Paolo Cavallini napsal(a):
> Il 02/03/2013 01:16, Frank Warmerdam ha scritto:
> 
>> I must admit I'm not absolutely certain what the best way is
>> to move OSGeo4W forward.  Given the right person interested
>> in working on the project full time (or a substantial part time)
>> at a "scrappy" price, I'd push for funding but I'm not sure that
>> such a person exists. 
> 
> Well, I think it depends a lot on what do you mean with "scrappy": can you work out a
> potential budget? I'm sure we can find support from our huge Windows power users base.
> 
>> There are also some technical direction issues with
>> OSGeo4W that remain open. 
>>  - Should we stay focused on just 32bit or add/switch to 64bit?
> 
> IMHO adding 64bit is important.
> 
>>  - Should we do "complete refreshes" every could of
>>    years instead of the package by package updating 
>>    that works well at the high level but not so well down
>>    in the low level packages (like GDAL).
> 
> IMHO a continuous refresh (à la Debian unstable) is the way to go.
> 
>> Anyways, I don't want to dive into great detail on the board
>> list, but I do think OSGeo4W is worthy of OSGeo funding 
>> if the project had a clear plan how such funding would 
>> work.   
> 
> Agreed fully - thanks for your thoughts.
> All the best.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 

-- 
Jachym Cepicky
Help Service - Remote Sensing s.r.o.
jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
HS-RS: jachym at hsrs.cz http://bnhelp.cz
http://les-ejk.cz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20130304/799bfc0a/attachment.sig>