[OSGeo-Discuss] Recent comparison of desktop GIS and image processing capability?
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Wed May 18 04:37:13 PDT 2016
Good points, particularly the involvement of some of our academic community members (perhaps Geo4All) to better define each of the functional components and relate them to citable sources.
Rather than playing catch-up, there is potential to set the agenda.
Why limit this to just Desktop GIS?
> From: Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Tom Roche <Tom_Roche at pobox.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2016 9:17 AM
> To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Recent comparison of desktop GIS and image processing capability?
> Bruce Bannerman 
>>> Your spreadsheet comparison shows a lot of potential, but I can see that will take a lot of effort to keep it current.
> Markus Neteler
>> 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, 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, 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>
> : https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-May/016128.html
> : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nNEtjWBROepTzGgTjZ8PslWyv7z_QqzgF1uRSm-0at0/edit?usp=sharing&authkey=CPGQ26EG
> : https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-May/016129.html
> : Native markdown does not support tables directly (except via native HTML), but extensions that support tables include GFM, Markdown Extra, and MultiMarkdown.
> : http://gisgeography.com/qgis-arcgis-differences/
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss