[OSGeo-Discuss] open source desktop shootout

[Seven of Nine (aka Arnulf)]

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:04 +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> n Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Christopher Schmidt
> <crschmidt at crschmidt.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 03:36:43PM +0200, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> >> Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 10:16:52AM +0200, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> >> >> Markus Neteler wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Cameron Shorter
> >> >>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> Percy,
> >> >>>> To start the ball rolling, I've created a wiki page for a desktop comparison
> >> >>>> here:
> >> >>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GIS_Desktop_Comparison
> >> >>> Here a reasonable contribution, lead by Tom McConnell:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Matrix on OSGeo and COTS software functionality"
> >> >>> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Albk_XRkhVkzdGxyYk8tNEZvLUp1UTUzTFN5bjlLX2c&hl=en
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Best regards,
> >> >>> Markus
> >> >>>
> >> >> Here comes the prayer wheel again...
> >> >>
> >> >> What does "COTS" mean? "Ready-made products" [1]. Is that the opposite
> >> >> to Open Source software? No.
> >> >
> >> > Did anyone say anything about it being an opposite? "OSGeo and COTS"
> >> > is one phrase -- there is no distrinction in the spreadsheet (although
> >> > there is a row stating whether the software is proprietary or not,
> >> > which is obviously distinct from COTS.)
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand your complaint. What would you change about the
> >> > spreadsheet that causes you to make this point?
> >>
> >> Did I complain?
> >
> > Your email reads very much like a complaint to me. In fact, as your only
> > reply was a complaint about terminology, with no obvious positive
> > feedback for the person who put a lot of work into a nice spreadsheet, I
> > would feel very discouraged personally on reading it -- doubly so since
> > it comes from someone whose opinion is obviously well-respected in the
> > OSGeo community.
> 
> It has been a group of authors, I have taken care of a part of the OSGeo related
> packages mentioned in the spreadsheet.
> 
> Yes, significant time has been spent on this table compilation.
> 
> I have contacted the lead, Tom McConnell, if we can open the editing up to
> more people. Let's wait for his answer.
> 
> Markus

As I already said: "Nothing wrong with the spread sheet." I apologize if
this detail did not come out clearly (and was then deleted from the
original posting). 

The work done in the spread sheet is very valuable. Another spread sheet
with similar aim and focusing on web mapping was recently posted by
Cameron Shorter:
http://geotux.tuxfamily.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&task=view&id=239&Itemid=59&lang=en

I very much support redistributing, extending and commenting this type
of documents. Ideally in a close context and linked from OSGeo which
might even help make sure that the documents are always up-to-date,
which fits well with OSGeo's goal of maintaining a high quality not only
in software but what goes around it. 

But if we do that, I insist that... No. Reformulating: May I ask to
consider that we take care to use the terminology that does not put Open
Source in an inferior position to start with? Advocating Open Source is
hard enough without carrying the context of being
different/new/inferior(!) from a usability point of view. Which is one
connotation that comes with the term COTS - which in my opinion is still
very much associated with proprietary software. 

Thank you,
Arnulf