|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Manifold 5.x vs. ArcGIS 8.x |
| Date: |
02/03/2003 06:27:19 PM |
| From: |
Dimitri Rotow |
|
|
> Hmm, might be that Dimitri figured out a corner of "post dot com"
> marketing
> first?
>
> >I have never seen a rep from ESRI,
> >Caliper, Golden Software, etc., get on this list and
> >contantly refer people to their product.
>
Well, let's see... I'm not against marketing but it's rarely "marketing" to
say contentious things in public places. That's why you don't see many
factory reps participate in public lists. They can't usually say anything
other than banalities regarding hotly-contested topics without angering some
part of the market. If they can only offer banalities they sound like idiots
so they may as well not participate. We do our marketing by putting
capabilities into the product. Discussions on lists are what I do on my own
time because I like to debate things that are important to me in GIS. That
the company I work for tolerates contentious speech by its employees shows a
lot of confidence, I think.
Plus, in my last few dozen posts I haven't referred anyone to "my" product.
So I don't know where this "constantly" thing comes from other than a
rhetorical device to tar the other side of a debate instead of dissecting
the contents of the debate. As I recall, the original posting that started
this thread asked for links to comparisons between specific products. Glenn
posted a few and I posted the two that I knew about that he did not mention.
We then got off on a tangent when someone flamed the guy who didn't even
post to this list but rather was cited in a link to a thumbnail review (one
of the links I posted) and I rose to that guy's defense. The guy originally
posted in Manifold-L in response to a question from another lister. The
person writing is well known within the Manifold community and an active
poster, so people know who he is and the pros and cons of his approach to
GIS. I think it's great that someone like him would take time out of a busy
professional position in GIS to make so many helpful posts, and I'm just
slightly surprised anyone would characterize, even as just a rhetorical
tactic, a third party posting that comprises one link in a somewhat
difficult-to-find page out of over 3,000 pages on the website as a
"principal marketing piece". If someone has a better collection of links to
respond to the original request beyond those Glenn and I offered, they could
certainly contribute them.
Regarding people from GIS manufacturers participating in this list: I think
it is something of a loss that GIS factory reps are not routinely part of
contentious GIS discussions in lists like this. The GIS software that is
used by hundreds of thousand of people worldwide, including the people on
this list, is not created by some nebulous "them" - it is created by a
relatively small number of people. Even in the largest GIS companies only a
relative handful of people are the ones who decide what the GIS package
looks like, what it does and how much it costs and thus decide what the
day-in, day-out experience of GIS will be like for people who use those
packages. It seems to me that all GIS users would be better served if the
people who design GIS software would engage in real discussions. in public,
about contentious issues. Yes, that takes time, but just like it takes time
for people in a family to have difficult discussions with each other it is
something that is important. Plus, I happen to like arguing about
contentious issues in GIS. :-)
Speaking of contentious issues, I do happen to feel that in order for GIS to
break out of the current living-fossil state about which much GIS technology
revolves it is necessary for GIS software to a) take advantage of modern
trends in software and b) achieve price/performance values closer to what's
going on in mainstream software markets. I see both of these elements in the
expansion of GIS beyond a legacy niche into much greater mainstream usage,
and I think the transformation of technology and increase in value is
something that touches just about every GIS project being planned today. It
is understandable that some legacy vendors who resist both a) and b)
wouldn't want to talk about such things but it seems to me that everyone who
actually uses GIS, those vendors working to move GIS forward and especially
those people who pay for GIS would find propositions a) and b) of great
interest.
It's really absurd that someone would have so little regard for the efforts
of other GIS manufacturers that they would take the above paragraph as some
sort of "code speak" to mean just one particular software package out of
dozens of packages offered by dozens of vendors worldwide. It shows no
respect to other companies if the two phrases "modern trends in software"
and "mainstream price/performance value" could only mean one com
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
