Poll: MapServer and Autodesk
Paul Spencer
pspencer at DMSOLUTIONS.CA
Thu Dec 22 23:04:35 EST 2005
Ed, as I just replied to Mike, you get no bonus points for figuring
out that the question seems intended to sway opinions ;)
I view this whole competition thing somewhat differently and think co-
branding would actually help me in my job. I just don't seem to be
able to come up with an adequate way of explaining my point of view
that doesn't sound completely lame. But I'll try ...
To me, there isn't actually that much competition. MapServer doesn't
do many of the things that Tux does, and it is painful to try to make
it do them (at least, it is for me). Similarly, you won't be able to
make Tux do what MapServer does any better than MapServer does it
(see ... totally lame). Two tools to be used at the most appropriate
time, perhaps even together in the right circumstances. There will
be overlap and I guess that is where the competition comes in. As
you say, that competition can be heathy. What I don't want to see is
a push to make MapServer try to do some of the things that Tux does
just to compete with it ... at least not if it means making changes
to MapServer that would not have otherwise been contemplated.
Perhaps with a common name, the two products could focus on sharing
common technology (based on same libraries, perhaps share common
cartographic rendering, labelling algorithms etc) while continuing to
improve the aspects of each that make them unique rather than trying
to implement all the features of each in both (again, lame).
Did any of that make any sense?
Cheers
Paul
On 22-Dec-05, at 10:48 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:
> Paul -
>
> I think you may be right, although I think I was confused by Gary's
> explanation.
>
> I have to say, however, that this poll reminds me of Ross Perot's
> famous
> poll - "Do you support giving the President a line-item veto to cut
> government waste?" Who's going to vote in favor of government waste?
>
> Describing one option as "making open source web mapping the
> platform of
> choice" and the other as "competing directly with the new brand name
> that will be created and heavily promoted by Autodesk" is rather far
> from being a neutral presentation! If option (b) encompasses
> something
> like the scenario I mentioned (a "product line" name that is a new
> name,
> not derived from either existing brand, and product names based on the
> "familiar" names currently in use) then yes, you're right. But that
> wouldn't be "competing directly with the new brand name" any more than
> "MapServer Cheetah" and "MapServer Enterprise" are, so I'm confused.
>
> There is a big red herring about "competition" swimming about
> here. The
> product formerly known as Tux and the product formerly known as
> MapServer ARE competing, and an endless debate about names isn't going
> to change that. These are two "competitive" products, in that many
> customers will choose between them because either one is a reasonable
> starting point to solve their problem. Autodesk has announced that
> they
> plan to develop a commercial support and services business around the
> product formerly known as Tux. That's fine, but that will inevitably
> flavor their support and interest in any foundation in which that
> product is one of several choices. If Autodesk did not want to
> "compete" with MapServer, it could have directed its staff to work on
> the many needed enhancements to the existing MapServer code base
> rather
> than continuing to build and release a completely separate body of
> code.
>
> I am *not* saying that this competition is a bad thing, nor am I
> saying
> that Autodesk should have done anything differently. But it is
> misleading to claim that with the right branding and labeling one can
> cause the products to not compete, or to think that if they're managed
> by separate foundations they're competing and if they're managed by
> the
> same foundation they're not competing.
>
> - Ed
>
> Ed McNierney
> President and Chief Mapmaker
> TopoZone.com / Maps a la carte, Inc.
> 73 Princeton Street, Suite 305
> North Chelmsford, MA 01863
> Phone: +1 (978) 251-4242
> Fax: +1 (978) 251-1396
> ed at topozone.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-
> USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul Spencer
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:30 PM
> To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Poll: MapServer and Autodesk
>
> Ed, Option B seems to cover that angle unless I am missing something?
>
> Paul
>
> On 22-Dec-05, at 8:43 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:
>
>> Gary -
>>
>> You seem to be deliberately overlooking the rather obvious
>> solution of
>
>> removing the word "MapServer" from the Foundation's name. If one
>> were
>
>> to steal an idea from Tyler's editors and call it the "Web Mapping
>> Foundation", then many of the issues you describe below would go
>> away,
>
>> wouldn't they? The "WMF MapServer" and "WMF MapGuide" products are
>> both members of the WMF product family as much as a MapServer
>> Enterprise and MapServer Cheetah are members of the MapServer product
>> family, aren't they? I'm not trying to lobby for that particular
>> name, but rather to point out another route to a solution.
>>
>> I guess that means I'd vote for (c).
>>
>> - Ed
>> Ed McNierney
>> President and Chief Mapmaker
>> TopoZone.com / Maps a la carte, Inc.
>> 73 Princeton Street, Suite 305
>> North Chelmsford, MA 01863
>> Phone: +1 (978) 251-4242
>> Fax: +1 (978) 251-1396
>> ed at topozone.com
>>
>> From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-
>> USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU]
>
>> On Behalf Of Gary Lang
>> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:50 PM
>> To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
>> Subject: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Poll: MapServer and Autodesk
>>
>> Below is a note that Tyler Mitchell and I put together to help
>> describe some of the 'open letter' groups' thinking around the name
>> issue. There is also a new POLL related to it - please vote when you
>> have a minute. It will be very helpful to measuring peoples'
>> opinions.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/ms_autodesk
>>
>>
>>
>> At the end of this message is a poll for you to vote on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those of us that signed the open letter may not have laid out exactly
>> what it meant to us to have a shared name brand. This note is an
>> attempt lay out those reasons clearly, so we all understand why we
>> thought it was important to share name brands.
>>
>>
>>
>> Each of us knew that:
>>
>>
>> * MapServer has had a good history, significant market share and has
>> good equity in its name.
>>
>>
>> * Autodesk is a very successful company, with successful products and
>> has significant amounts of brand equity
>>
>>
>> * Autodesk were planning to release "Tux" as open source and continue
>> to develop it through an open source community
>>
>>
>>
>> Autodesk had a choice to make: a) offer to work with MapServer to
>> find
>
>> common ground, to build synergies and not compete; or, b) set up
>> their
>
>> own open source geospatial software foundation as a home for their
>> product, develop their own independent branding for their product and
>> end up competing with MapServer.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the spirit of open source, Autodesk engaged DM Solutions, UMN,
>> Steve Lime and other developers, etc. to try to find a way to work
>> together.
>>
>> Granted, it was behind closed doors because an NDA was required for a
>> public company like Autodesk to even have such a conversation with
>> outsiders, but we thought we had a very good representation of the
>> leaders in the community.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our collective thinking was that a common name for the products would
>> be ideal. Having both products under the same banner was good, but
>> only if both products and the foundation could share that common
>> name.
>
>> There was going to be potential for confusion, but sharing a common
>> prefix for two different products is not unheard of and it was going
>> to be a major change. We all wanted to keep building on MapServer
>> momentum instead of ignoring MapServer and building something
>> independent of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> After all the feedback from the community, it's more than obvious
>> that
>
>> the naming is an major issue. But the naming of both the products
>> really represents the willingness to share the brand or not. A
>> "MapServer Foundation" cannot equally represent both MapServer and
>> MapGuide. The names are the brand. If a product can't use the name,
>> then it isn't using the brand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Autodesk decided that it would rather take the harder road and work
>> with an existing community, than go it alone and work against that
>> community.
>>
>> And the MapServer stakeholders decided they would take the hard road
>> and work with Autodesk to find a common path, rather then compete
>> head-to-head.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then the story broke, and the MapServer community had the reaction
>> we all saw to the name. The general reaction to the announcement
>> outside of the MapServer community has actually been quite positive.
>>
>>
>>
>> If a common name brand can't be used, then one alternative will be
>> that MapServer is not going to be leading the startup of a
>> foundation that can house both MapServer and Tux. As well, such a
>> foundation can not be called the "MapServer Foundation" any more
>> than it should be called the "MapGuide Foundation". In many ways,
>> voting against sharing the name brand is actually voting against
>> working with Autodesk on starting the MapServer Foundation.
>> Autodesk will not be willing to put their investment into a
>> foundation that hides their name brand under the name of another
>> web-based mapping project. It has already invested a lot of money
>> in promoting the "MapServer Foundation", which no one else has ever
>> done.
>>
>>
>>
>> So this was the thinking and these are the choices. We didn't do
>> it all perfectly and not having broader community input was a real
>> problem. I wish that we could have put the following question out
>> there for community feedback from the very start.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the poll question, please cast your vote and comment on the
>> poll online at:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/ms_autodesk
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------
>>
>>
>>
>> What serves the MapServer Community best?
>>
>>
>>
>> a) Work with Autodesk under the MapServer Foundation, creating a
>> unified brand name, with MapServer and Autodesk lending their
>> respective brand equities to each other and working together to
>> make open source web mapping the platform of choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> b) Work with Autodesk to release its product through a foundation
>> with a different name such as "MapTools", with MapServer now
>> competing directly with the new brand name that will be created and
>> heavily promoted by Autodesk, even though they will likely be
>> housed by the same foundation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Lang
>>
>> Tyler Mitchell
>>
>>
>
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Paul Spencer pspencer at dmsolutions.ca |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Applications & Software Development |
> |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Spencer pspencer at dmsolutions.ca |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Applications & Software Development |
|DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
More information about the mapserver-users
mailing list