[Starting a new thread as this is an important point on its own. Original mail is [1].]
On 02/07/14 01:10, Glynn Clements wrote:> But in the longer term, should we be claiming to support a platform
> for which we appear to have no active developers?
I think that the question merits discussion. In my teaching experience it has been very helpful to have a MS Windows version to allow students with MS Windows machines to install the software on these machines. I also have colleagues who, for different reasons, are quite resistant to installing another OS on their machines, but would like to use GRASS. So, generally, I think that there should be a MS Windows port of GRASS.
At the same time, with machines becoming more powerful and virtualization becoming a standard feature, one could argue that we should rather support a OSGEO, linux-based virtual machine that any windows user can install and run easily, without having to try to solve problems on an OS that no (or very few) developer actually uses, which in the past has lead to a series of sub-optimal hacks and conflicts between developers.
No clear opinion on my side, but I think we should approach this question without taboo and try to see advantages and disadvantages of each solution.
2014-07-02 13:22 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
[Starting a new thread as this is an important point on its own. Original
mail is [1].]
On 02/07/14 01:10, Glynn Clements wrote:> But in the longer term, should we
be claiming to support a platform
for which we appear to have no active developers?
I think that the question merits discussion. In my teaching experience it
has been very helpful to have a MS Windows version to allow students with MS
Windows machines to install the software on these machines. I also have
colleagues who, for different reasons, are quite resistant to installing
another OS on their machines, but would like to use GRASS. So, generally, I
think that there should be a MS Windows port of GRASS.
we simply _must_ support as much as possible GRASS on Windows. It's
crucial for us, without users there is no need for developing
software.
[Starting a new thread as this is an important point on its own. Original
mail is [1].]
On 02/07/14 01:10, Glynn Clements wrote:> But in the longer term, should
we
be claiming to support a platform
for which we appear to have no active developers?
I think that the question merits discussion. In my teaching experience it
has been very helpful to have a MS Windows version to allow students with
MS
Windows machines to install the software on these machines. I also have
colleagues who, for different reasons, are quite resistant to installing
another OS on their machines, but would like to use GRASS. So, generally,
I
think that there should be a MS Windows port of GRASS.
we simply _must_ support as much as possible GRASS on Windows. It's
crucial for us, without users there is no need for developing
software.
Martin
I concur with Martin! supporting winGRASS is a must.
maybe let's spend some money to fix some crucial OS-depending issues...
In my experience, the bulk of the existing GIS users are using Windows and those using GIS professionally are often in work environments where the use of virtual machines or installation of other OS’s is prohibited.
The unfortunate fact is that many GIS users have not been exposed to an OS environment other than Windows. Requiring them to load/learn another OS just to run this GIS software would be a fairly high bar for the average user. Without a Windows port, GRASS will simply not be available to a majority of institutional/mainstream GIS users.
If the goal is to expand the user base of GRASS, the maintaining a Windows port is an excellent method.
Doug
···
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de> wrote:
Martin Landa wrote
Hi,
2014-07-02 13:22 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <
mlennert@.worldonline
>:
[Starting a new thread as this is an important point on its own. Original
mail is [1].]
On 02/07/14 01:10, Glynn Clements wrote:> But in the longer term, should
we
be claiming to support a platform
for which we appear to have no active developers?
I think that the question merits discussion. In my teaching experience it
has been very helpful to have a MS Windows version to allow students with
MS
Windows machines to install the software on these machines. I also have
colleagues who, for different reasons, are quite resistant to installing
another OS on their machines, but would like to use GRASS. So, generally,
I
think that there should be a MS Windows port of GRASS.
we simply must support as much as possible GRASS on Windows. It’s
crucial for us, without users there is no need for developing
software.
Martin
I concur with Martin! supporting winGRASS is a must.
maybe let’s spend some money to fix some crucial OS-depending issues…
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the Interior. Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats.
> But in the longer term, should we be claiming to support a platform
> for which we appear to have no active developers?
I think that the question merits discussion. In my teaching experience
it has been very helpful to have a MS Windows version to allow students
with MS Windows machines to install the software on these machines. I
also have colleagues who, for different reasons, are quite resistant to
installing another OS on their machines, but would like to use GRASS.
So, generally, I think that there should be a MS Windows port of GRASS.
The issue isn't whether we "should" support Windows. It's whether we
"are" supporting it or even "can" support it.