In article <9405312133.AA12959@tate.com> you write:
GRASS but rather are using ARCINFO. I asked why and he said that GRASS
wouldn't fulfill their needs (no details on why).
Doug,
I believe it was the lack of database integration (prior to the tools that
have been developed) that led to ARC/INFO being adopted by USFS. (This I
gather from informal discussions, not official policy).
In article <01HCYN4V33OY0007QF@PLAINS.UWYO.EDU> Bill Baker wrote:
I find it hard to accept that our government will not accept free
software needed to accomplish their mission, but I'm sure there
are legal uncertainties.
I have two questions. First, are there people out there in U.S.
Forest Service offices who are openly using GRASS? Second, is
this a legitimate concern on the part of the Forest Service?
It seems shortsighted to me that skilled people in the Forest
Service may be discouraged from using much of the free and quite
useful software available on the net!
Bill Baker
bakerwl@uwyo.edu
And I replied to him:
* Just my two cents worth -- "free" ? What of the cost of having someone
* compile and maintain the software. What about training and its costs?
* What of the time (cost) of converting ARC/INFO data to GRASS format? What
* about the cost of new computers -- most districts are on the DG (Data General)
* system, which is not even PC-based, but a dedicated server/slave terminal
* configuration that is proprietary.
* True, the USFS regional office (Lakewood) and Arapahoe/Roosevelt Nat.
* Forest (Ft. Collins) have HP workstations and qualified people.
* The taxpayers (and me) are fed up with government waste, and having duplicate
* GIS systems (after choosing a good, albeit expensive one) can be seen as a
* luxury ala Rosty.
* I would suppose (my guess, not first-hand knowledge, by any means) is that
* the DATABASE integration sold ARC to the USFS, (unless they got a good price,
* like DOI agencies did under the GIS II contract.).
* We will be installing ARC soon, and converting our database to ARC format, and
* adding MUCH to it because of the database abilities (using straight INFO, not
* another third-party database). We will keep our GRASS database and software
* for the time being, so that we will still have a functioning GIS during the
* transition and learning curve phase of this operation. After that, I do
* not know if I can justify the updating/maintaining of a GRASS database just
* for the sake of having it available.
* Ron Thomas (the GIS guy at ROCKY)
Take care!
Ron Thomas (the GIS guy at Rocky Mountain National Park)
my own opinions, etc., etc...