[GRASS5] Re: [Fwd: whinging about GRASS again]

[Russell Nelson]

Mark P. Line writes:
 > something that looks and works differently than the system they trained
 > on, users are often either confused or convinced that the tool has a
 > broken user interface.

This is the "Everybody gets taught ARCinfo, so if they find GRASS
hard, it's their teacher's fault" excuse.

 > RN> So my hopes of having my suggestions accepted are low.
 > 
 > First, GRASS has no grand tradition of open source in the GPL sense of
 > open source. GRASS used to be in the public domain, and has only
 > (relatively) recently been placed under open source constraints.

"Open source constraints"?  Public domain software is open source
software.  Open Source comes under many licenses; not just the GPL.
See http://opensource.org/licenses/ .

 > Third, I'm not sure what "accepted" means in the last sentence.
 > 
 > If it means that you're concerned that your code might not find its way
 > into future releases of GRASS,

Yes, that is my concern.  Glynn Clements has already said "your
proposal wasn't feasible.  Nothing has changed since then."

 > RN> The last time I made similar suggestions several years ago,
 > RN> instead of people saying "yes, those are good suggestions",
 > RN> people said "if that's all you want to do, GRASS is the wrong
 > RN> package".
 > 
 > One possible reason is that if they had said "yes, those are good
 > suggestions", they would have been misleading you -- even if the straight
 > answer is sometimes painful to hear.

No, that's not it.  It's not that they didn't like my solution.  It's
that they didn't like my problem.  No solution can satisfy a
non-problem.  GRASS developers acknowledge that GRASS is hard to use
on one hand, but they also say that fixing that problem is not a
priority for them.

 > RN> I agree!  If all you want to do is use
 > RN> GRASS, GRASS is the wrong package.
 > 
 > I think the point is that you should select software that does what you
 > need, not decide up front that you're going to find a way, no matter how
 > circuitous, to use software XYZ to meet your needs come Hell, high water
 > or the tax man.

In other words, "if that's all you want to do, GRASS is the wrong
package."  See what I mean?

 > RN> I think that, for GRASS to achieve a larger user base (and
 > RN> consequently larger developer base), it needs changes which will piss
 > RN> off all current grass users.
 > 
 > Does GRASS need a larger user base?

I must wax philosophical.  I believe, as an item of faith, that life
is too short to spend it writing software for just yourself.
Consequently, when I write software, I want as many people to benefit
from it as possible.  That's why I'm the President of the Open Source
Initiative.  Helping people to benefit from open source is a priority
for me.

I have many years of experience in using computers.  When I run across
a piece of software which appears to solve a problem for me, and which
I cannot figure out how to use, I conclude that the software is at
fault.  Many people do not do this.  If they cannot run GRASS, they
conclude that the problem lies with them, not the software.  It's
almost as if GRASS's motto is:

      GRASS: Making GIS Harder Than It Needs To Be For Twenty Years.

I rail similarly at BIND.  The domain name system is not so very hard
to understand.  BIND makes it harder by combining the function of DNS
caching and DNS authoritative serving.  It uses a funky zone file
format.  It uses default parameters that don't make any sense.  If
you're used to BIND, you won't see the problem.  BIND is great.

 > RN> GRASS needs to be completely refactored into a completely different
 > RN> kind of GIS system.
 > 
 > Design it, and look for people to help you code it. What's the problem? If
 > your system can compete well with the old GRASS, users will flock to yours
 > in droves. (Swarm to yours in flocks? Drive to yours in trucks?)

I think the solution is just as you suggested: to create a front-end
which is helpful.  Doesn't require any changes to GRASS.

 > In any event, I don't think GRASS is hard to use. I think GRASS is hard to
 > learn, just like every other GIS I've ever seen.

This is the "GIS is hard, so it's okay if GRASS is harder" excuse.

 > RN> Imagine: an open source GIS package that was both capable AND usable!
 > 
 > There used to be tens of thousands of people who used GRASS every day. Has
 > that dwindled to just a handful while I wasn't looking?

This is the "but lots of people are using GRASS every day" excuse.

Anecdotal evidence: I saw a presentation by the NPS on water flow in
Mammoth Cave.  Me: "Nice maps; did you use GRASS?"  NPS: "No,
ARCview.  We used to use GRASS, but .... we switched."

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | The laws of physics cannot
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | be legislated.  Neither can
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell  | the laws of human conduct.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP  |