|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Re: Effective Standards |
| Date: |
04/29/2003 07:15:01 PM |
| From: |
Kevin Murphy |
|
|
As PFC Gomer Pyle use to say " SURPRISE SURPRISE"
lol
>>> <Chad.M.NIELSEN@odot.state.or.us> 04/29/03 07:44PM >>>
And you just happen to work for Manifold. What a coincidence!
-CN
-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri Rotow [mailto:dar@manifold.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:27 PM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: Re: Effective Standards
>
> Stratospheric!?!
>
> So, the cost savings from using "free" software is dwarfed by the
> increased
> costs of configuration, deployment, and administration?
>
For most people, yes. That's one reason why Microsoft and other
commercial
products are so popular, and why people jumped instantly from using vi
and
troff into commercial word processing applications.
> This may be true about some open-source software compared to some
> commercial
> systems (see Dimitri's last paragraph). It just depends. But
Mapserver?
> Compared to what?
>
Compared to modern Internet map servers that are built into modern GIS
packages. (I exclude by definition, living fossils like ArcIMS.)
In the old days people would have some absurdly expensive, obsolete
package
to do their GIS work in (like ArcView or ArcInfo), to prepare their
data,
etc, and then they'd have some other absurdly expensive, obsolete
package
(like ArcIMS) or perhaps some free-to-license but weird to configure
package
(like MMS) to use as a server. Talk about a formula for complexity,
learning two systems, things that look different on the web than in the
GIS,
etc.
The modern way is to have one system that is both a fine interactive
GIS and
also an Internet map server. This has a number of benefits, such as
reduced
cost of ownership, the ease of learning but one system and the
seamless
publication of projects: what you see on the Web is exactly what you
saw
when you created it in the GIS. Plus, the nice thing about leveraging
a GIS
package is as the GIS package expands in capability the range of web
sites
that may be created with the integral map server also automatically
expands.
For most people, there's no need to spend more than $250 to get fast,
powerful GIS that includes very a very intense, flexible, powerful
Internet
map serving capability. See, for example,
http://www.manifold.net/mapserver
> Sure, development of the actual web-mapping interface is another
story.
> You've got to know (or be able to learn) some HTML... You've got
> to read the
> documentation to learn how to make a map file... The lack of GUI
tools for
> Mapserver has made it, in the past, more difficult for some people to
work
> with compared to many commercial packages. However, this should
change as
> more WYSIWYG tools are developed.
>
My point exactly. If you use a modern Internet map server you don't
have to
do any of that. Just create your project in a WYSIWYG way in your
wonderful
modern GIS and then click on File - Export Web Page and it does all
that for
you.
Also, don't forget the embedded cost of your GIS package to create all
those
layers you hope to publish with with the Minnesota map server. When
working
with a black box like MMS you still need a visual tool to whip into
shape
what you want to publish to the web. If you work with a modern system
you
have no such extra cost.
By the way, the "lack of GUI tools" you cite is a common problem with
open
source. People do the easy bit, the crafting of a black box server
gadget,
but then they usually discover that the time and resources required to
craft
elaborate, fast, modern, user-friendly GUIs is beyond the reach of
freeware.
Without very serious financing (hard to come by without a profit motive
in
play) it is extremely difficult to concentrate the required
development
resources in space and time to keep up with commercial players.
> Then there is ArcIMS...
Well, the last thing I would cite as "modern" is ArcIMS.... :-) I
agree
with you that compared to ArcIMS the Minnesota Mapserver is a great
deal.
But compared to modern stuff it's not a good deal at all for the sort
of map
serving that most people want to do on the web.
I also would 100% agree with you that one can imagine various custom
scenarios that must be programmed in any map server, even the modern
ones.
If what you want to do doesn't fit into the possibilities afforded by
the
self-programming facilities and templates, well, then the cost of
programming will bite you even with modern stuff. However, I would
respectfully suggest that to the extent the basics don't have to be
programmed or developed, you save time and money using a modern
commercial
package. Why re-invent the wheel when you can buy it for a fraction of
the
cost of your "free" labor?
I also agree that open source can be a fantastic approach for some
people.
If your hobby intere
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
