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

[Mark P. Line]

Russell Nelson said:
> Mark P. Line writes:
>  > Russell Nelson said:
>  > > Because that's what Fedora has packaged.  When somebody says "GRASS
> is
>  > > the open source GIS program", and they install the GRASS package,
>  > > that's what they'll get.
>  >
>  > Sorry, there's no such thing as "the GRASS package".
>
> [nelson at desk nelson]$ rpm -q grass
> grass-5.7.0-1.fdr.2
> [nelson at desk nelson]$

Yes. That is ***a*** GRASS package that is installed on a particular
system. There is no sense in which that is ***the*** GRASS package that
"they" get whenever "they" install GRASS.


>  > > Here's one way the learning curve could be flattened:
>  > >
>  > > First, don't ask for a location.  Use $HOME/.grass.
>  >
>  > What do you call it on Windows and Mac systems?
>
> I dunno. I expect that there is a reasonable default on both
> systems. "My Documents\GRASS" for Windows perhaps?

There's nobody but you designing this proposed enhancement. If you don't
know, then nobody does. When your design is complete, maybe you can find
some people to help you code it.


>  > How do you share locations among several users?
>
> That's not likely to be the first thing you do.  If it is, then the
> person who is sharing the data with you will be able to tell you how
> to access it.

In any shop I run, that will absolutely be the first thing any new user
does who comes online with the platform.


>  > Renaming of symbols upon which downstream client software depends is a
>  > backward compatibility issue.
>
> How many other programs besides the ones shipped with GRASS understand
> GRASS's file hierarchy?  I acknowledge the general case of the problem
> you describe.

That's hard to say. How many programs besides the ones shipped with the
Linux kernel call fork()?

There are a number of systems that have been made to interoperate with
GRASS. CD-ROM's have been produced and sold which contain mountable GRASS
locations.

In any event, even just the internal compatibility issues (current users'
scripts that would break when they upgraded to the nomenclaturally
beautified version) are sufficient to warrant severe caution when renaming
any interface symbols.


>  > Why does GRASS require more users?
>
> Everyone agrees that GRASS has a steep learning curve of its own,
> independent on the GIS learning curve.  Consequently, there must be
> many people who would like to do GIS analysis using GRASS, but have
> not gotten past the learning curve.

That tells me that there are people not currently using GRASS. I already
knew that, and that was not my question.

My question was why you think GRASS requires more users than it already has.


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX