|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question * |
| Date: |
01/24/2003 02:55:24 PM |
| From: |
PSTERLING |
|
|
Is reading 1/10 of Dimitri's posts some kind of new classification? Does t=
his alone make me an imbecile? Heady questions for Friday.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wunneburger, Douglas F. [mailto:d-wunneburger@tamu.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 12:39 PM
To: William Howell: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: Re: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question *
I suggest you read again.
To any moron who has read a tenth of the posts by Dimitri,
"GIS software per seat now costs less than $250 a seat." =3D Manifold.
Since, according to Dimitri, Manifold doesn't spend much on marketing, and
judging by the amount of time he must spend on his submissions, apparently
the GISList has become its de facto marketing department.
I see he mentioned "less than $300 a seat" later in his post. We must be
due for a price increase.
Douglas Wunneburger
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Howell" <WHowell@mclaneenv.com>
To: <gislist@geocomm.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question *
> That's funny I didn't see him mention anything about Manifold. Yes, he
> loves it and so do many other people that have made the switch or at
> least checked it out but he merely stated a price cap (which happens to
> coincide). Some of us are a bit tired of paying over a grand for a
> piece of software that won't get you anywhere without expensive
> extensions.
>
> BTW, who's doing word counts for opinion quality?
>
> William L. Howell
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Doyle [mailto:adoyle@intl-interfaces.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: gislist@geocomm.com
> Subject: RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question *
>
>
> Since it's not always easy to read these diatribes, I'll help out.
>
> Dimitri said:
>
> 1. Keep it simple
>
> 2. Think about underlying data and services,
> not just pre-rendered maps
>
> 3. Avoid OGC, he hates it. OGC standards suck.
>
> 4. Buy Manifold, he loves it. Everything else sucks.
>
> My take:
>
> 1. Good advice
>
> 2. Good advice
>
> 3. Bad advice. I think you should not constrain yourself one way or
> the other with OGC stuff. Who knows, there might be some useful
> nuggets there.
>
> 4. Who knows. He might be right. But it's your money so spend it
> wisely, not based on who can pound out the most number of words
> in any given email message.
>
> On Friday, January 24 2003 at 11:26:13(-0800) Dimitri Rotow wrote: >
> > >
> > > A group of us in the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) are reviewing
> options > > for developing a p2p geo-refereneced data publication
> mechanism. > > > > The target is not so much the 'serious GIS
> practitioner' but rather the > > field researcher who may have a
> limited number of tabular datasets, with > > some form of spatial
> referencing, that they're willing and able to publish > > in a manner
> that makes them accessible for rendering as maps, charts etc > > via
> OGC-type interfaces. Essentially, data discovery - 'I have some such >
> > data'. Embelishments could incorporate allowing downloads of the data,
> or > > choosing to upload to central repositories should the custodians
> see the > > benefit of additional relaibility or availability. This
> obviously is not a > > commercial model, but a public good scenario. >
> > > > Our envisaged application include on-the-fly consolidation of
> data on e.g. > > marine mammals being gathered by scattered and
> disparate researchers often > > at the the thin end on internet
> connectivity. > > > > The requirement for high-quality metadata need
> not be re-iterated here. > > However, our potential contributors are
> those who probably have > > never heard > > of OGC, ISO/TC-211 or even
> GIS! > > >
> > Mick,
> >
> > First, let me commend you and your colleagues at UNEP for placing
> data > online. There's a vast array of UN GIS data that could be
> helping people > around the world if only it were made accessible, and
> the UNEP site is a > really ground-breaking step on the way to getting
> that data out of the file > cabinets and hard disks of the UN and into
> people's hands. The site looks > good and functions well and the data
> it presents is really useful. Well > done! >
> > Second, I'd encourage you to consider the following points in any P2P
> > project: >
> > 1) Keep it si
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
