No subject

[News Account]

Newsgroups: info.grass.user
Path: ront
From: ront at picea.CFNR.ColoState.EDU (Ronald Thomas)
Subject: Re: your mail (arc vs grass)
Sender: news at yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (News Account)
Message-ID: <CqtpFw.1H99 at yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 13:28:43 GMT
References: <199406030211.TAA28383 at netcom.com> <9406030624.AA27245 at devin.fns.uniba.sk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: niwot.cnr.colostate.edu
Organization: College of Natural Resources, Colo. State Univ.
Lines: 15

In article <9406030624.AA27245 at devin.fns.uniba.sk> grassu-list at max.cecer.army.mil writes:
>I think the best way is to keep both systems (or if possible more systems) 
>to combine the best things from them in solving your specific problems.
>And for GRASS should be the best to build those its parts which are poor
>in other systems and in such manner make it attractive for GIS users.

I agree, because GRASS's flexibility and ability to meet new needs will
not only make it an effective tool, but hopefully the presence of an
evolving GIS will keep the third party GIS developers on their toes, adding
tools/modules to their products.
 
Ronald Thomas                                ront at meeker.cfnr.colostate.edu
 Natural Resource Spec. (GIS)         ^^^    Phone: 303-586-1285
  Resources Management Division  ^^  ^^^^^   FAX: 303-586-1310
   Rocky Mountain National Park ^^^ ^^^^^^^  Estes Park, CO  80517