To make our grass more popular we must make it more easier to be used . in this regard why we didn’t developed a toolbar for example . it is a small thing but it will add more power to grass.
secondly: the notion of making every command is a separate program is a truly barren and consuming the time and the effort…as a result GRASS became a difficult software to deal with… in comparison with the other softwares.
we don’t need the people to hear about grass …then use it for a while … then leave it .
Let’s make useful things in this regard…we can commence it by making a toolbar.
To make our grass more popular we must make it more easier to be used.
agreed.
in this regard why we didn't developed a toolbar for example . it is
a small thing but it will add more power to grass.
d.m in 5.7?
d.dm + tcltkgrass in 5.4?
secondly: the notion of making every command is a separate program is
a truly barren and consuming the time and the effort....as a result
GRASS became a difficult software to deal with... in comparison with
the other softwares.
I think this is the main thing that makes it both maintainable and run
in a stable way (memory errors are contained in the one module for
example).
Anyway whether modules are their own programs or not is just internal
structure and can be invisible to the user.
we don't need the people to hear about grass ..then use it for a while
.. then leave it .
I would push for consistency between modules as a priority-
To make our grass more popular we must make it more easier to be used . in this regard why we didn't developed a toolbar for example . it is a small thing but it will add more power to grass.
secondly: the notion of making every command is a separate program is a truly barren and consuming the time and the effort....as a result GRASS became a difficult software to deal with... in comparison with the other softwares.
we don't need the people to hear about grass ..then use it for a while .. then leave it .
Let's make useful things in this regard...we can commence it by making a toolbar.
I agre with you, grass should be easier to use,
i think qgis (www.qgis.org) will help you out. It has a nice toolbar and
direct access to grass raster and vector files. You can edit these files
with qgis.
But i dont think the developers should break with the concept of seperate
programms, it is much easier to develop new modules. Also garants the
modularity of grass and the shell more power and flexibility than a
toolbar!
Best regards
soeren
faithfully,
Mahmoud Salama
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!