[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Will there be an OSGeo Desktop shootout atFOSS4G 2010?

[Brian Russo]

You're absolutely right, pretend I said collaborate instead of consolidate.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>wrote:

> I'll do that talk, if there's really interest in it, but it has
> nothing to do with technology or desktops, it's sociology and
> psychology. And no, efforts cannot "be consolidated" (active
> intervention) they "may consolidate" (natural progression).
>
> P.
>
> - Why? "Because, we felt like it, and we knew better."
> - Pros and cons? Weighted in favor of the
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Brian Russo <brian at beruna.org> wrote:
> > I think a more interesting presentation would be why there are so many
> > desktop GIS packages, the consequent pros/cons, and if/how efforts could
> be
> > consolidated.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Steiniger <sstein at geo.uzh.ch>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hei all,
> >>
> >> thanks for Cameron on keeping me in the loop, and to Markus for
> >> remembering :)  I am now subscribed to this list.
> >>
> >> I think Pauls idea sounds interesting - because this whole comparison
> >> thing is
> >> a) quite cumbersome when we have 10 desktop GIS (+ X), and
> >> b) neither really worth because desktop GIS are used for a multitude of
> >> tasks, while web map Servers or databases aren't that much - right?
> >>
> >> So as Paul is quoted on the osgeo wiki: one needs to set up use cases
> >> first (just wrote that today in a new article too, which contains a
> section
> >> on selecting free GIS software). And I also discovered that just most of
> the
> >> projects have a different focus during my evaluation. Which of course
> does
> >> not mean that such thing should not be presented - but it must be
> focussed
> >> in some way or the other to have a benefit. And as a side note, I am not
> >> sure if measuring processing times makes sense either, as GIS analysis
> >> feature sets are so different.
> >>
> >> However, I am in for testing with OpenJUMP.
> >>
> >> Two more notes:
> >> - my comparison tables are now already 2 years old now (from 2007), i.e.
> >> need some update (but the last pub in Ecological Informatics took into
> >> account newer developments too, but is superficial and focused towards
> the
> >> "average" GIS users).
> >> - I gave a talk about this at OGRS:
> >> http://www.ogrs2009.org/doku.php?id=keynotes
> >> pdf can be downloaded from there.
> >>
> >> cheers from Germany right now (Xmas)
> >> stefan
> >>
> >> PS: I know also of this comparison by T. Hengl et al. on Grass vs. SAGA
> >> for Geomorphologic Analysis
> >>
> http://www.igc.usp.br/pessoais/guano/downloads/Hengl_etal_2009_gmorph.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul Ramsey schrieb:
> >>>
> >>> Interested in a different approach that is lower impact, but still
> >>> interesting and entertaining? Have developers review a "competing"
> >>> project and then present their findings, in the form of "What I love
> >>> about ___, what I hate about____".
> >>>
> >>> Jody Garnett presents "What I love about QGIS, what I hate about QGIS."
> >>> Jorge Sanz presents "What I love about uDig, what I hate about uDig."
> >>> Tim Sutton presents "What I love about gvSIG, what I hate about gvSIG."
> >>>
> >>> Not only do you get an unvarnished view, but you can have shorter
> >>> presentations with a discussion segment at the end of each one.
> >>>
> >>> Works for almost any application category too.
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20091220/0c73b735/attachment-0002.html>