[OSGeo-Discuss] Recent comparison of desktop GIS and image processing capability?

Tom Roche Tom_Roche at pobox.com
Tue May 17 16:17:07 PDT 2016

Bruce Bannerman [1]
>> Your spreadsheet[2] comparison shows a lot of potential, but I can see that will take a lot of effort to keep it current.

Markus Neteler[3]
> to my knowledge the effort is stalled. In my view the maintenance of this table is a perfect task for OSGeo :-)

+1. I suspect (YMMV) the table would be more maintainable if it was first

1. translated into a lightweight markup that (of course :-) supports tables. Candidates include one of the markdown extensions[4], MediaWiki, and reStructuredText.

2. version-controlled in an online repository.

I would also urge OSGeo to try to get third-party input (e.g., GIS Geography[5], folks from some of the GIS curriculum bodies) into the evaluation/maintenance process to inhibit (to paraphrase) unduly preferring the taste of our own koolaid.

FWIW, Tom Roche <Tom_Roche at pobox.com>

[1]: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-May/016128.html
[2]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nNEtjWBROepTzGgTjZ8PslWyv7z_QqzgF1uRSm-0at0/edit?usp=sharing&authkey=CPGQ26EG
[3]: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-May/016129.html
[4]: Native markdown does not support tables directly (except via native HTML), but extensions that support tables include GFM, Markdown Extra, and MultiMarkdown.
[5]: http://gisgeography.com/qgis-arcgis-differences/

More information about the Discuss mailing list