|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question * |
| Date: |
01/24/2003 03:21:39 PM |
| From: |
William Howell |
|
|
I guess even amongst so called professionals, a list cannot be complete
without those that can only respond by "flaming" and adding their always
impressive insults. I thank you, you add so very much to the value of
the list.
Yes, Dimitri mentions his software (a bit often). So what? It's a good
piece of software and he wants people to know about it. If it's really
too much for you to ignore the "ads" then unsubscribe. I guarantee we
won't miss you're rare posts that only serve to deride others.
William L. Howell
-----Original Message-----
From: Wunneburger, Douglas F. [mailto:d-wunneburger@tamu.edu]=20
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:39 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,=20
> he loves it and so do many other people that have made the switch or=20
> at least checked it out but he merely stated a price cap (which=20
> happens to coincide). Some of us are a bit tired of paying over a=20
> grand for a piece of software that won't get you anywhere without=20
> 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=20
> reviewing options > > for developing a p2p geo-refereneced data=20
> publication mechanism. > > > > The target is not so much the=20
> 'serious GIS practitioner' but rather the > > field researcher who=20
> may have a limited number of tabular datasets, with > > some form of=20
> spatial referencing, that they're willing and able to publish > > in=20
> a manner that makes them accessible for rendering as maps, charts etc
> > > via OGC-type interfaces. Essentially, data discovery - 'I have=20
> some such >
> > data'. Embelishments could incorporate allowing downloads of the=20
> > data,
> or > > choosing to upload to central repositories should the=20
> custodians see the > > benefit of additional relaibility or=20
> availability. This obviously is not a > > commercial model, but a=20
> public good scenario. >
> > > > Our envisaged application include on-the-fly consolidation of
> data on e.g. > > marine mammals being gathered by scattered and=20
> disparate researchers often > > at the the thin end on internet=20
> connectivity. > > > > The requirement for high-quality metadata need
> not be re-iterated here. > > However, our potential contributors are=20
> those who probably have > > never heard > > of OGC, ISO/TC-211 or=20
> 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 pe
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
