GRASS and ARC....

[W. Fredrick Limp]

I just had to put my two "sense" worth into this thread:
> 
> Just my two cents worth -- "free" ?  What of the cost of having someone 
> compile and maintain the software.  What about training and its costs?
---
  everybody seems to forget that, *If* you want you can *buy* GRASS
  with support and all that keen stuff.  The price usually runs about
  1 to 3 kilobucks.
-----
> What of the time (cost) of converting ARC/INFO data to GRASS format?  What

________
   One of the problems with a closely held data structures is that translation
   is made more difficult.  With the open structure of GRASS many vendors
   now have software that can read/write GRASS data with no translation.
   As an aside.... the problem w/ GRASS to Arc data translation is that
   the ARC module still assumes the GRASS 3.0 data structure... 
   You can either convert GRASS 4.+ color
   tables back to GRASS 3.0 format or remove the color table and then
   the ARC tool for importing GRASS data will work.
---------
> about the cost of new computers -- most districts are on the DG (Data General)
> system, which is not even PC-based, but a dedicated server/slave terminal
> configuration that is proprietary.
> 
> True, the USFS regional office (Lakewood) and Arapahoe/Roosevelt Nat.
> Forest (Ft. Collins) have HP workstations and qualified people.
> 
> The taxpayers (and me) are fed up with government waste, and having duplicate
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  er, I don't want to point a finger but isn't spending a zillion federal
  dollars when there was *already* a perfectly useful system in use a little 
  like converting stamps to cash (aka Mr. Rosty's charges??)

> GIS systems (after choosing a good, albeit expensive one) can be seen as a
> luxury ala Rosty.
> 
> I would suppose (my guess, not first-hand knowledge, by any means) that 
> the DATABASE integration sold ARC to the USFS, (unless they got a good price,

-----
   There is a very solid DATABASE linkage in GRASS with the db tools.
   DB tools works with Informix, Oracle and Ingress at last count and
   fully implements the "geo-relational" model.  I don't want to carp
   but I think that you will shortly be finding out why INFO is 
   commonly referred to as the "darkside" of ARC.  Info is not
   SQL compliant etc etc... the new (rev 6.0) DB linkages do
   permit solid linkages with SQL complinat RDBMses but they do take
   a little twisting and turning... you will soon see why cursors are
   commonly mispelled curses &*#@$%...

   Listen, ARC is a great system but has its limitations, but so is GRASS they
   just have different strengths and weaknesses.  
--------
> like DOI agencies did under the GIS II contract.).
> 
> We will be installing ARC soon, and converting our database to ARC format, and
> adding MUCH to it because of the database abilities (using straight INFO, not
> another third-party database).  We will keep our GRASS database and software 
> for the time being, so that we will still have a functioning GIS during the 
> transition and learning curve phase of this operation.  After that, I do
> not know if I can justify the updating/maintaining of a GRASS database just
> for the sake of having it available.
> 
> My opinions, not that of ......
> 
> 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
> 
> 


-- 
W. Fredrick Limp,   Director                     FAX: (501) 575-3846
CAST, Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies   TEL: (501) 575-6159     
12 Ozark Hall, University of Arkansas         
Fayetteville AR 72701                             fred at cast.uark.edu