I have recently got a new job working for a small business. My role is GIS/mapping and I am wanting to use GRASS - cost being the predominant issues. I come from an ESRI ArcInfo/ArcGIS background. I am confident that GRASS (and myself) have the capability to deliver the businesses requirements.
The business is in the process of setting up its computer system and I want to ensure that we have considered the needs of the GIS as it will be a core part of the business.
My wish list includes;
storing all data in Postgresql
database (and therefore data) is accessible to all users on the network
database is available for other applications ie MapServer ec
I would appreciate feedback from users who are using GRASS in a similar, networked environment and how they have implemented it. At this stage all desktop computers will be running Windows.
I think it would be best to run linux on the server (what flavour is another quesiton ie GISKnoppix/GISDebian - ready made system or is it better to use an alternative and install applications myself?). The server can still act as a central fileserver using Samba. To access GRASS I could use a terminal server, this way all processing is done on the server with the data, rather than relying on the network etc.
I am skeptical about running GRASS under cygwin, my main concerns relate to storing and accessing data in the postgresql database on the server.
Any suggestions/ideas/experiences would be most appreciated.
I would suggest you to use the new (rather experimental for now, but I guess
it'll become stable in 1-2 months) qgis+grass natively compiled for win.
No problem (apart from the occasional bug) in using a central pgsql db.
All the best.
pc
At 02:28, giovedì 25 maggio 2006, Craig Feuerherdt has probably written:
I have recently got a new job working for a small business. My role is
GIS/mapping and I am wanting to use GRASS - cost being the predominant
issues. I come from an ESRI ArcInfo/ArcGIS background. I am confident that
GRASS (and myself) have the capability to deliver the businesses
requirements.
The business is in the process of setting up its computer system and I
want to ensure that we have considered the needs of the GIS as it will
be a core part of the business.
My wish list includes;
> storing all data in Postgresql
> database (and therefore data) is accessible to all users on the
> network database is available for other applications ie MapServer ec
I would appreciate feedback from users who are using GRASS in a
similar, networked environment and how they have implemented it. At
this stage all desktop computers will be running Windows.
I think it would be best to run linux on the server (what flavour is
another quesiton ie GISKnoppix/GISDebian - ready made system or is it
better to use an alternative and install applications myself?). The
server can still act as a central fileserver using Samba. To access
GRASS I could use a terminal server, this way all processing is done
on the server with the data, rather than relying on the network etc.
I am skeptical about running GRASS under cygwin, my main concerns
relate to storing and accessing data in the postgresql database on the
server.
Get them to buy you a fancy widescreen Mac Software costs negate the
hardware costs, and (Freely upgradable) software doesn't depreciate in
value with time like a hardware investment does.
I don't think Windows is a practical option for a complex server.
You could probably get something to work, but it would probably be
hobbled.
Linux as a company wide server (but in practice used 95% by you) is
probably an easier sell to their support staff than "I feel the need to
be different". Better chance of a stronger machine that way as well
You might get a second machine for your desk too, and if it is UNIXy
tunnel X over ssh to connect in with full graphics.
GRASS over a text based ssh link (Putty on Windows) into a Linux box
works ok. A couple little scripts to use the PNG driver & serve the
graphics over a web server works in a pinch, but I wouldn't want to do
it every day. Interactive GIS without graphics is..... harder.
Debian + DebianGIS packages & backports are well supported. http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl
GISKnoppix (debian based) is fine for a play, but you'll want a full &
tuned install. The world changes too fast for Knoppix & preinstalled
systems to keep up, IMO.
Hamish
ps - Did I mention, "get them to buy you a fancy widescreen Mac"?
On 5/24/06, Hamish <hamish_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Linux as a company wide server (but in practice used 95% by you) is
probably an easier sell to their support staff than "I feel the need to
be different". Better chance of a stronger machine that way as well
You might get a second machine for your desk too, and if it is UNIXy
tunnel X over ssh to connect in with full graphics.
GRASS over a text based ssh link (Putty on Windows) into a Linux box
works ok. A couple little scripts to use the PNG driver & serve the
graphics over a web server works in a pinch, but I wouldn't want to do
it every day. Interactive GIS without graphics is..... harder.
I frequently connect to our Linux machines from my windows laptop and
run GRASS over an ssh tunnel. Works great. On a fast connection there
is little difference between running it native or tunneling the
display. This is a perfect use of Cygwin on windows.
Another alternative is to use the Remote desktop clients that come
with many linux distros now days. You can remote in and drive the
desktop directly. VNC works OK, FreeNX is amazing good. I could even
use our servers over a modem when tunneling X would have been
prohibitively slow.
I frequently connect to our Linux machines from my windows laptop and
run GRASS over an ssh tunnel. Works great. On a fast connection there
is little difference between running it native or tunneling the
display. This is a perfect use of Cygwin on windows.
You can tunnel X windows from a Linux machine into a Cygwin
environment??? and it is usable???
I've tunnelled X from a SunWorkstation -> Linux before, but never tried
from cygwin (or from Mac+X11 for that matter).
With the mouse->100% CPU bugs fixed recently by Radim, application
server based use is again working well.
> I frequently connect to our Linux machines from my windows laptop and
> run GRASS over an ssh tunnel. Works great. On a fast connection there
> is little difference between running it native or tunneling the
> display. This is a perfect use of Cygwin on windows.
You can tunnel X windows from a Linux machine into a Cygwin
environment??? and it is usable???
Yes; that's how I work at present. Most of my work is done in an
XEmacs instance running on the Linux box with its windows open on the
Windows box. Except that I don't tunnel X over SSH; I just allow
direct incoming connections from the Linux box.
The Linux box is connected to the second monitor input, but its
keyboard and mouse stay tucked in the corner unless I actually need to
use them (which is rare; the last time was when I changed the drive
connections around to add a DVD-writer and needed to use the BIOS
setup).
Actually, Windows probably makes a better X terminal than Linux does.
Cygwin's XWinGL supports accelerated indirect OpenGL rendering,
whereas the XFree86/X.org servers only accelerate direct rendering
(and Xgl is still at an "alpha" stage). Also, the graphics card
vendors tend to treat Windows drivers as a higher priority than Linux
drivers.
[While there are (or at least used to be) commercial X servers for
Linux which support accelerated indirect rendering, they tend to be
for obscure "professional" 3D cards (e.g. Evans & Sutherland) which
have become obsolete since high-performance 3D cards became a consumer
item.]
Installing GRASS for Mac is easier than for any other system—drag and drop. Works like a charm on an iMac with 1Gb RAM. It works as well in Mac OSX as it does in Linux. We’re running GRASS on Mac and Fedora Core 4. One of my students swears by Debian. Windows is more complicated. You can certainly use it, but the set up is more difficult (the other responses spoke to this).
GRASS makes it relatively easy to store data on a central server and use desktop versions of the application. This is an alternative to storing data AND running the app from a server.
Michael
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics and Complexity
Arizona State University
I have recently got a new job working for a small business. My role is GIS/mapping and I am wanting to use GRASS - cost being the predominant issues. I come from an ESRI ArcInfo/ArcGIS background. I am confident that GRASS (and myself) have the capability to deliver the businesses requirements.
The business is in the process of setting up its computer system and I want to ensure that we have considered the needs of the GIS as it will be a core part of the business.
My wish list includes;
storing all data in Postgresql
database (and therefore data) is accessible to all users on the network
database is available for other applications ie MapServer ec
I would appreciate feedback from users who are using GRASS in a similar, networked environment and how they have implemented it. At this stage all desktop computers will be running Windows.
I think it would be best to run linux on the server (what flavour is another quesiton ie GISKnoppix/GISDebian - ready made system or is it better to use an alternative and install applications myself?). The server can still act as a central fileserver using Samba. To access GRASS I could use a terminal server, this way all processing is done on the server with the data, rather than relying on the network etc.
I am skeptical about running GRASS under cygwin, my main concerns relate to storing and accessing data in the postgresql database on the server.
Any suggestions/ideas/experiences would be most appreciated.
Software costs negate the