Hi all.
During a national conference on Open Source software
(http://www.salpa.pisa.it/), one of the speakers (ESRI businnes partner,
curiously enough) has showed a comparison, which I found misleading, between
ArcView and GRASS. Does anybody have hard data, reference material, or
experience to share on this?
Many thanks.
pc
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
During a national conference on Open Source software
(http://www.salpa.pisa.it/), one of the speakers (ESRI businnes partner,
curiously enough) has showed a comparison, which I found misleading,
between ArcView and GRASS. Does anybody have hard data, reference material,
or experience to share on this? Many thanks. pc
Paolo,
Why was ESRI indirectly at a OSS conference? Seems rather odd to me.
Anyway, comparing ArcView and GRASS is like comparing Notepad to LaTeX.
They're two different tools intended for different audiences and tasks.
I suggest you'll get good answers if you're more specific about what
comparisons you need and for what purposes.
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of "Quantifying Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic"
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
At 19:43, venerdì 11 novembre 2005 you presumably wrote:
Paolo,
Why was ESRI indirectly at a OSS conference? Seems rather odd to me.
strange, isn't it? in a way, this indicates that we are getting out of the
getto, maybe.
Anyway, comparing ArcView and GRASS is like comparing Notepad to LaTeX.
They're two different tools intended for different audiences and tasks.
I (we all?) *know* this.
I suggest you'll get good answers if you're more specific about what
comparisons you need and for what purposes.
I know there are not much hard data on this; I am asking if there is anything
I can put together to have strong arguments, the next time I have a direct
confrontation.
pc
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
At 19:43, venerdì 11 novembre 2005 you presumably wrote:
Paolo,
Why was ESRI indirectly at a OSS conference? Seems rather odd to me.
strange, isn't it? in a way, this indicates that we are getting out of the
getto, maybe.Anyway, comparing ArcView and GRASS is like comparing Notepad to LaTeX.
They're two different tools intended for different audiences and tasks.I (we all?) *know* this.
I suggest you'll get good answers if you're more specific about what
comparisons you need and for what purposes.I know there are not much hard data on this; I am asking if there is anything
I can put together to have strong arguments, the next time I have a direct
confrontation.
pc
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
One of the arguments for GRASS that I often find myself talking about is this:
With the ESRI products it is possible to point and click your way to a map or "analysis", without actually understanding what is going on. In GRASS this is much harder to do: using a command requires that you know about your inputs and outputs, and to a certain degree the _what_ the algorithms are doing. Much in the same way that *NIX operating systems require the user to be knowledgeable or at least willing to learn while using the system. Widows and in the same way Arc products, are the distillation of the computing experience. While some things may be simpler, the auditing of results and general understanding are hindered.
Paradoxically, this is also why many new users are discouraged... Therefore, I feel that working examples to get people going in GRASS are of the utmost importance.
Cheers,
--
Dylan Beaudette
Soils and Biogeochemistry Graduate Group
University of California at Davis
530.754.7341
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
I know there are not much hard data on this; I am asking if there is
anything I can put together to have strong arguments, the next time I have
a direct confrontation. pc
ArcView GRASS
------- -----
vector data raster, vector, other data
designed for designed for analysis
viewing
business orien- academic/research orientation
tation
One can go on.
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of "Quantifying Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic"
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
> I know there are not much hard data on this; I am asking if there is
> anything I can put together to have strong arguments, the next time I have
> a direct confrontation. pcArcView GRASS
designed for designed for analysis
viewing
business orien- academic/research orientation
tation
This is almost the same thing I see in my field.
Well, I work with petroleum geophysics, i.e.:seismic.
Actually, I work at a R&D facility. What I've heard is that some
companies are more interested in having results quickly than in having
the right, thought through, scientificaly based results, which can
take much more time to arise than the other way.
Then, it should be easy to collate some pretty pictures and present it
to manager and [buzzword alert!] stakeholders.
So this is the target for windows based ISPs: quick and pretty whith a
basic technical approach.
So, I think we will not get out of the ghetto, because this is the
land of deep thinkers (at least deeper than most).
BTW, we are in good company, ESR and RMS wise....Not forgetting Markus
and the gang...
--
Paulo Marcondes
http://rj.debianbrasil.org
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, pmarc wrote:
Actually, I work at a R&D facility. What I've heard is that some companies
are more interested in having results quickly than in having the right,
thought through, scientificaly based results, which can take much more time
to arise than the other way. Then, it should be easy to collate some pretty
pictures and present it to manager and [buzzword alert!] stakeholders.
At the risk of going too far off-topic, there was a book written many years
ago called, "How to Lie With Statistics." There should be a companion volume
called, "How to Lie With Maps."
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of "Quantifying Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic"
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:44:35PM -0800, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> flavor, containing:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, pmarc wrote:
>Actually, I work at a R&D facility. What I've heard is that some companies
>are more interested in having results quickly than in having the right,
>thought through, scientificaly based results, which can take much more time
>to arise than the other way. Then, it should be easy to collate some pretty
>pictures and present it to manager and [buzzword alert!] stakeholders.At the risk of going too far off-topic, there was a book written many
years
ago called, "How to Lie With Statistics." There should be a companion volume
called, "How to Lie With Maps."
An amusing little read, actually.
--
Tom Russo KM5VY SAR502 DM64ux http://www.swcp.com/~russo/
Tijeras, NM QRPL#1592 K2#398 SOC#236 AHTB#1
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly
worth the effort." -- Norton Juster
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:30:00 +0100
Paolo Cavallini <cavallini@faunalia.it> wrote:
Hi all.
During a national conference on Open Source software
(http://www.salpa.pisa.it/), one of the speakers (ESRI businnes partner,
curiously enough) has showed a comparison, which I found misleading, between
ArcView and GRASS. Does anybody have hard data, reference material, or
experience to share on this?
I think Rich Shepard's little table is a pretty good summary. I think another factor
that must be included when ERSI drones start pumping out their message is that for ArcView to have
capabilities similar to GRASS, many very expensive add-on modules must be purchased.
The common reply to this is that ArcView runs better under Windows and is easier to use, so
it is worth it to buy a license and have no control over your software. To this, I would suggest
that the appropriate counter is that if users want Windows integration and ease of use, they
should buy Manifold GIS, for 1/10 the cost of ArcView and is considerably more powerful than
the base ArcView product.
Historically ESRI gained market dominance primarily through US government contracts, not because they had a quality product. Now they have managed to become deeply entwined in the University system (in the USA and Canada) so people coming out of school don't know anything else. The end result is that you have ignorant people making decisions about what to buy and use. A software vendor couldn't ask for anything more. I think their presence at a supposed FOSS GIS conference is a clear indication that ESRI has seen the affect GNU/Linux has had on Microsoft and they are afraid of GRASS, QGIS, etc.
I'm not sure of the value of countering individuals like this; its like arguing with missionaries at your door, although possibly entertaining, it is a waste of time. I did find an interesting link however from somebody rethinking feature comparisons between different GIS software packages. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but it is an interesting idea.
http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=150
Unfortunately the author doesn't complete the comparison graphs, but the method has merit.
T
--
Trevor Wiens
twiens@interbaun.com
The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same
level of thinking we were at when we created them.
(Albert Einstein)
Don't blame the tool ...
ESRI has done for GIS what Microsoft did to productivity software. One
affect of this is that expert users (and use cases) were sacrificed to
get the tool out to the masses. ESRI is dominate because their product
was a better fit for the vast majority of users and they were the
first to market a product designed to solve enterprise problems. This
lead to a return on their investment and in the end, industry
dominance. Not unlike Microsoft.
GRASS will continue to be viable in the same way Linux is...by filling
the niches that ESRI cannot or will not. A few strengths of GRASS over
ESRI right now are its flexibility and amenability to
research/academic experimentation.
David
On 11/11/05, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini@faunalia.it> wrote:
Hi all.
During a national conference on Open Source software
(http://www.salpa.pisa.it/), one of the speakers (ESRI businnes partner,
curiously enough) has showed a comparison, which I found misleading, between
ArcView and GRASS. Does anybody have hard data, reference material, or
experience to share on this?
Many thanks.
pc
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
--
David Finlayson
Marine Geology & Geophysics
School of Oceanography
Box 357940
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-7940
USA
Office: Marine Sciences Building, Room 112
Phone: (206) 616-9407
Web: http://students.washington.edu/dfinlays
On 11/11/2005 11:23 PM, Trevor Wiens wrote:
I'm not sure of the value of countering individuals like this; its like arguing with missionaries at your door, although possibly entertaining, it is a waste of time. I did find an interesting link however from somebody rethinking feature comparisons between different GIS software packages. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but it is an interesting idea.
http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=150
Unfortunately the author doesn't complete the comparison graphs, but the method has merit.
T
It continues here
http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=151
here
http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=156
and here
http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=157
--W
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Trevor Wiens wrote:
The common reply to this is that ArcView runs better under Windows and is
easier to use, so it is worth it to buy a license and have no control over
your software. To this, I would suggest that the appropriate counter is
that if users want Windows integration and ease of use, they should buy
Manifold GIS, for 1/10 the cost of ArcView and is considerably more
powerful than the base ArcView product.
If I may be permitted peripheral comments again, I have two to offer.
I first learned of GIS in 1987 when we used it at the state agency where I
was a technical program manager. I quickly learned that most people wanted
pretty maps, not deep technical analyses. I think that's still the case in
many situations: make the map sufficiently visually attractive and no one
questions the quality of the data.
One problem with "ease of use" is the emphasis on the wrong aspect. When I
was more heavily involved with GIS than I am now (my current business focus
being on the application of approximate reasoning models to environmental
issues), I found too many people who "knew" GIS because they knew how to
operate the program controls. My response was that teaching someone how to
use a word processor did not make her a writer; teaching someone how to use a
graphics program does not make him an artist. There's a huge difference
between knowing how to do things with a computer application and knowing what
to do to get the proper results. I've seen this mis-match with a lot of folks
who do multiple T-tests rather than ANOVA on their data because they don't
understand statistics, but they have a computer application that "does"
statistics for them.
Your analogy is very pertinent: understand what you're doing before you use
a tool that takes away the tedium of calculation.
Carpe weekend,
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of "Quantifying Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic"
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
I'd jump in here, but I think the rest of you have said it pretty well. For
making nice maps fairly easily--especially in a business
environment--ArcView is a good choice. For an academic/research environment
I think GRASS is a better choice. It Idrisi is also a good choice for the
latter environment, but only runs on Windows. I'm not sure yet how ArcGIS
9.x fits in. My initial reaction is that ESRI may have hurt the formula that
worked so well in the past. ArcGIS is much more powerful than ArcView, but
it is also considerably more complicated. Making a nice map is not so easy
any more. On the other hand, its installation and licensing (including the
dongle that has to be repurchased each year I'm told) is not unusual for a
large business environment, but it is problematic in an academic/research
environment.
Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution and Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton
From: Trevor Wiens <twiens@interbaun.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:23:25 -0700
To: <cavallini@faunalia.it>
Cc: <GRASSLIST@baylor.edu>
Subject: [GRASSLIST:9014] Re: ArcView vs GRASSOn Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:30:00 +0100
Paolo Cavallini <cavallini@faunalia.it> wrote:Hi all.
During a national conference on Open Source software
(http://www.salpa.pisa.it/), one of the speakers (ESRI businnes partner,
curiously enough) has showed a comparison, which I found misleading, between
ArcView and GRASS. Does anybody have hard data, reference material, or
experience to share on this?I think Rich Shepard's little table is a pretty good summary. I think another
factor
that must be included when ERSI drones start pumping out their message is that
for ArcView to have
capabilities similar to GRASS, many very expensive add-on modules must be
purchased.The common reply to this is that ArcView runs better under Windows and is
easier to use, so
it is worth it to buy a license and have no control over your software. To
this, I would suggest
that the appropriate counter is that if users want Windows integration and
ease of use, they
should buy Manifold GIS, for 1/10 the cost of ArcView and is considerably more
powerful than
the base ArcView product.Historically ESRI gained market dominance primarily through US government
contracts, not because they had a quality product. Now they have managed to
become deeply entwined in the University system (in the USA and Canada) so
people coming out of school don't know anything else. The end result is that
you have ignorant people making decisions about what to buy and use. A
software vendor couldn't ask for anything more. I think their presence at a
supposed FOSS GIS conference is a clear indication that ESRI has seen the
affect GNU/Linux has had on Microsoft and they are afraid of GRASS, QGIS, etc.I'm not sure of the value of countering individuals like this; its like
arguing with missionaries at your door, although possibly entertaining, it is
a waste of time. I did find an interesting link however from somebody
rethinking feature comparisons between different GIS software packages. I'm
not sure I entirely agree, but it is an interesting idea.http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=150
Unfortunately the author doesn't complete the comparison graphs, but the
method has merit.T
--
Trevor Wiens
twiens@interbaun.comThe significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same
level of thinking we were at when we created them.
(Albert Einstein)
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Michael Barton wrote:
For making nice maps fairly easily--especially in a business
environment--ArcView is a good choice. For an academic/research environment
I think GRASS is a better choice.
I over-simplified my brief answer. GRASS is -- or could be -- a valuable
business tool once it was developed with a modern UI. I'm not starting a
flame war here, and I will not respond to more posts defending why it's still
the way it was 20+ years ago. I went through that years ago and no longer
really care.
My point is that there are many business applications, separate from
academia and research, where GRASS' analytic abilities are needed. But, in
this environment it needs a UI that's better designed. A good analogy is that
of LaTeX and LyX.
I spent about a year trying to wrap my head around writing in LaTeX using
emacs. I spent more time looking up the proper tags and syntax than focusing
on the content. Then, despite my inherent dislike of GUIs, I discovered LyX
-- the GUI front end to LaTeX. I worked through the tutorial in about a
half-hour and immediately re-wrote an article in LaTeX. A colleague of mine
(who still writes in raw TeX) told me he spent two weeks writing a resume for
his daughter who was graduating from high school. He sent me a pdf of that
and asked how it could be done in LyX; all this the first day I used the
application. By the afternoon of the next day I sent him the LyX/LaTeX code
that produced the same output he spent two weeks creating in TeX. I was a
complete novice and he was suitably impressed. Since then I've become much
more familiar with LaTeX and incorporate it heavily in my reports, articles,
and book all written using LyX.
GRASS should be the same way. A user should have the power of the command
line available, but have an easy-to-learn GUI front end. Then it will be as
suitable to the business/commercial market as it is to governments,
academicians, and reseachers who are not under time pressure to produce
results. Because GRASS is available under the GPL, any of us are able to
create the tool we need.
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of "Quantifying Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic"
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
I couldn't agree more.
Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution and Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton
From: Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:21:31 -0800 (PST)
To: <grasslist@baylor.edu>
Subject: [GRASSLIST:9029] Re: ArcView vs GRASSOn Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Michael Barton wrote:
For making nice maps fairly easily--especially in a business
environment--ArcView is a good choice. For an academic/research environment
I think GRASS is a better choice.I over-simplified my brief answer. GRASS is -- or could be -- a valuable
business tool once it was developed with a modern UI. I'm not starting a
flame war here, and I will not respond to more posts defending why it's still
the way it was 20+ years ago. I went through that years ago and no longer
really care.My point is that there are many business applications, separate from
academia and research, where GRASS' analytic abilities are needed. But, in
this environment it needs a UI that's better designed. A good analogy is that
of LaTeX and LyX.I spent about a year trying to wrap my head around writing in LaTeX using
emacs. I spent more time looking up the proper tags and syntax than focusing
on the content. Then, despite my inherent dislike of GUIs, I discovered LyX
-- the GUI front end to LaTeX. I worked through the tutorial in about a
half-hour and immediately re-wrote an article in LaTeX. A colleague of mine
(who still writes in raw TeX) told me he spent two weeks writing a resume for
his daughter who was graduating from high school. He sent me a pdf of that
and asked how it could be done in LyX; all this the first day I used the
application. By the afternoon of the next day I sent him the LyX/LaTeX code
that produced the same output he spent two weeks creating in TeX. I was a
complete novice and he was suitably impressed. Since then I've become much
more familiar with LaTeX and incorporate it heavily in my reports, articles,
and book all written using LyX.GRASS should be the same way. A user should have the power of the command
line available, but have an easy-to-learn GUI front end. Then it will be as
suitable to the business/commercial market as it is to governments,
academicians, and reseachers who are not under time pressure to produce
results. Because GRASS is available under the GPL, any of us are able to
create the tool we need.Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of "Quantifying
Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy
Logic"
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
INTRO:
oh I could have a field day with this thread, and I think i will. I just cant pass on this opportunity. I didnt want to start a thread like this, but Its rather lengthy, so grab a comfortable seat, a cup of joe, and be glad you use GRASS. Since there was some digression from the ArcView vs GRASS topic, i too shall digress. If you are a blind fan of ESRI, dont read this, you will just make silly responses. These are not petty issues. My criticism is harsh at times, but please read through this to see where i am coming from and why i have the opinions that i do. These are enormous amounts of money being paid for a now poor product. Dont perceive this as “bashing” of ESRI, but rather just a taste of the sincere and genuine experiences I have personally experienced with ArcMap/ESRI in a professional, deadline driven environment. This is why I was driven to find alternatives such as GRASS. And I am so thankful that I did.
There is one word that describes ESRI, and that word is GREED. There are many words that describe GRASS: excellence, refined code, dedication to producing a quality product, pride in the product, multi-platform compatibility, quick bug fixes, stability, innovation, free, intrigue to new users, relief for users of ESRI, and best of all: an embracing and supportive community and author(s). (I salute you Markus)
HISTORY:
ESRI had a good thing with workstation arc/info and the extra modules. the command line was king. i learned GIS on A/I workstation on UNIX. THose were the days when, if there was an erroneous result in the analysis or data creation, it was the user/operator’s fault. On the ArcMap platform, if the result is erroneous, its advised to first check that the software algorithm isnt bugged, because I have too often found this to be the case. (I could cite dozens of examples, a recent one i will say is the bugged HPGN/HARN projection in ArcMap’s on the fly projection, and physical projection of data in ArcCatalog)
Around the turn of the millennium, with the advent of ArcMap, ESRI completely fell to pieces in the quality of their product and the quality and availability of their tech support. They sold out to windows, they turned their back on the very operating system that helped their software be stable and crunch on analytical data for hours on end without bombing out. They ticked off a large portion of their existing GIS user base when doing this. They price gouged the community. They wove their software in to government agencies, large corporations, and the trickle down effect was felt as many other businesses had to now cater to the proprietary “datamodel specific” ESRI way of things. Now even if other companies and people want to use, better, open source, alternative software, they cant without major hassle, because final products are being asked to be delivered in a “geodatabase” fomat which as far as i know, only ESRI software can write. I beg of ANYONE in the open source community to create a program that can read/write to geodatabases (microsoft access databases with spatial component).
BROKEN COVERAGE DATA MODEL ON WINDOWS NETWORKS:
How in the world do they justify the SAME cost of their software that ran on UNIX on Windows? in the UNIX days, everything was expensive, the UNIX OS, the UNIX Hardware, the UNIX Administrators… a $9,000 Arc/Info fell right into the price scheme… and it WORKED. I personally experienced tons and tons of software bombouts/errors when building or doing overlays across the network. When they ported arc/info workstation to Windows with WINNT around 1996, it was BROKEN right off the bat, yet the prices were the same. A technician later told me, “You cant build, overlay or do anything that rebuilds topology across a pure windows network… because a windows server does not return the data specifically like a UNIX server does. it messes up workstation, and causes it to bomb out. our solution: COPY THE DATA LOCALLY.” i said this is unacceptable. networks have advantages. especially centralization and backing up. in a department of many, local copying of data is a night mare. this was hardly a “solution”, this was BROKEN. I said “well how can this be? how can this product be sold as it is, if the windows networks dont work with the coverage data model???” the response, “It never worked. We never tested it in a pure windows networked environment. this came to light after it was in production by other companies”. I was astonished and disappointed. this was the beginning of the end. due to this and the open nature of reading/writing shapefiles, ESRI needed a new, proprietary data model that only THEY could write/read. Enter the Geodatabase.
LICENSE CONFUSION, BAIT AND SWITCH:
Here’s just one example of the mess they created. Now the young GIS useres will not appreciate this if they have joined GIS post year 2000. In the “good old days”, a common software combination was workstation arc/info and arcview. workstation for data creation and analysis, and arcview for cartography. some people were paying maintenance on workstation and arcview. if i recall right, thats 3000$ & 500$ respectively PER YEAR. When ESRI came out with ARCmap, arcview was now just a subset of arcmap arc/info. there was no need to maintain two separate licenses for the sofwares because one was just a subset of another. Their licensing got majorly screwed up, so much to the point that when you asked a sales representative to explain it, the response was “we are confused about it too”. what kind of a response if that from sales reps who you are paying MASSIVE amounts of money EVERY single year??? Anyhow, there was no longer a need for arcview if you owned arcmap arc/info. would they credit you? would they allow the maintenance to be applied elsewhere? no, I personally was laughed at for even ASKING such a question by them, even though after the bait and switch a credit is the least they could have done. but no, they wanted more money. I had such a horrible experience at a local level with them that i took my issues to the east-coast sales manager. we hashed things out, i expressed sincere and genuine dissatisfaction with ArcMap, and all the bugs and plotting problems and production inhibiting issues in arcmap. His big solution: “WAIT till the next release(s) to fix the problems”. i wondered “well why have i been paying for this software for 4 years???” its really beta software, where the users have to find the bugs and report them to ESRI. Not to mention that with the immense complexity of ArcMap (i mean the context “menu” for the main “menu” is so big, it scrolls off a 21" monitor!), the tech support quality and availability diminished to the point where I would not get calls back for DAYS. by then, my deadline was missed. i would have to find work arounds. a VERY common statement from ESRI was, “well ask the community if we cant get to you fast enough, and post to our forums”. I"m thinking our organization is not paying $10,000 PER YEAR to go seek out the answer on line. we are paying this money to talk to techs who are knowledgeable and can solve the problems quickly. thats how it was prior to arcmap. immediate responses and problems solved for the user.
EMBEDDING ESRI INTO AGENCIES AND BIG BUSINESS:
there is no excuse for the complete garbage software that ESRI has out now nearly 6 years into this software’s life, and over a half dozen release of software versions. The users are the beta testers, the users are the de-buggers, the users are the victims. ESRI sits back collecting millions if not billions in yearly maintenance, working on their own schedule, and fixes stuff as they see fit. Try a lenghty editing session in ArcMap, and try to keep the software from crashing. Good luck. The personal touch and care for customers is gone. Unless you are a government agency, then I heard that they get taken out to lunches frequently by ESRI reps and treated great. THis makes sense because if they can weave their software in to government agencies, then other companies working for them/with them have to be ESRI compatible. not “open GIS” data exchange formats, but rather the proprietary Geodatabase. An example is agencies asking for data in Geodatabase format and maps in MXD format. this is unacceptable!
SYNONYMS:
Sadly, much like PC’s are synonymous with MicroSoft, GIS is synonymous to ESRI. THis is truly a shame. Monopolies are bad for the consumer. Monopolies are bad for GIS. ESRI is bad for GIS.
ADMISSION OF MESS:
As of this year ESRI redid their license scheme (and as i read in this thread, no you dont have to buy a dongle every year, you have to buy the “maintenance package” every year). ESRI must realize that the liensing is out of control. they simplified it by putting modules we used to pay for into the main license just this year, 5 years later after the software re-write and re-licensing. they made it sound like this stuff was free now. however our maintenance every year is still the same price as they jacked up the price on the main items.
BIND ESRI SUPPORTERS:
When this type of frustration is vented in ESRI forums the response is “stop whining”. There is plenty of justification for this disgruntled-ness. ESRI pulled the “bait and switch” maneuver. They had a solid product for 30 years, then FORCED the community to move to ArcMap, dumped UNIX OS’s, and sold out to windows. This is my career they are messing with, this is my livelyhood, this is my future. New users do not understand. They just live with the horrible bugs, and keep on clicking their way through GIS without a solid understanding of the data and analysis. They dont realize the enormous price that one pays for the software initially AND every subsequent year there after. They dont realize what quality GIS was. When deadlines and be met, and bugs are the reason why, thre is plenty of justification to vent this frustration. I have to use this cruddy software, or find a new job or even career. As consultants, we have to be compatable with our clients.
RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS THREADS:
ArcView doesnt just “run better under windows”… it ONLY runs on windows, provided we are talking about ArcMap ArcView. ArcView 3.X used to run on UNIX and was so solid. People who can really speak to this issue are the ones who were working with GIS prior to ArcMap’s existance. The fact it runs on windows is not a plus. This is the reason arcmap can not plot large images because of the file capture function is relied upon by windows. where the old arcview (3.X) used an ESRI file capture format and was nearly flawless. You have to put your map plot quality to poor if you are working with large images you want to plot on paper or the data gets dropped off the map. As per ESRI, they now rely on the windows subsystem to handle the file capture and print. Which is one reason why now they include their “arcpress” module, so that the maps can be rasterized for plotting capabilities. before this, their business partner would scour the forums looking for people with plotting problems and solicit them for their $3000 plotting “solution”. ESRI probably owns the “business partner” as well. this is unacceptable. plotting maps and large images should be an “out of the box” function for $9,000 software.
Dylan and Rich have extremely valid points in my. they capture the essence of this whole issue. Very well stated by the both of you.
Rich captures the essence with this, " I found too many people who “knew” GIS because they knew how to
operate the program controls. My response was that teaching someone how to
use a word processor did not make her a writer; teaching someone how to use a
graphics program does not make him an artist. There’s a huge difference
between knowing how to do things with a computer application and knowing what
to do to get the proper results."
Dylan is right on as well… I couldnt agree more with what he wrote. The dangers of point and clicking your way through a map or analysis, without understanding what is really going on can be disastrous.
An example is someone i encountered who said their experience with GIS was “spatial analyst”. This was peculiar to me, because they were asking about BASIC data creation procedures. This indicates that they can click their way through the “analysis”, but dont understand how the data was created or how it works. You can run the “analysis” but have absolutley NO CLUE about the data itself, or how to create it??? Eventually even a monkey couldl press all the right buttons to get the analysis to work.
GRASS ROCKS!:
GRASS is awesome. Its capabilities amaze me and intrigue me to keep learning about it. Quantum GIS is awesome. Mapserver is awesome. these three softwares on a Linux platform, have the ability to replace Arc/Info, ArcView and ArcIMS respectively. And its already happening. I saw an ArcView 3.X script that writes out a Mapserver File. people are catching on. the community is becoming aware.
I should write a book or large composition. I have had so much interaction with ESRI tech support, and sales reps that i know more than they want me to. I have so many stories and real life experiences with ESRI that it would be enough to turn many people away. After much prying from tech support and sales, I see the full picture. I would not be surprised if this privately owned company is shoving out tons and tons of copies of their software to continue to be the monopoly, and then suddenly go public and cash out and leave the mess for the shareholders. this is a common trend with private tech companies.
This is just some of my experiences. one good thing the horrible ESRI software did for me, it drove me to GRASS, QGIS and Mapserver. i thank them for that. I love Linux and the next logical step was GIS on linux. I know most all of you on this thread are of the same feeling that GRASS is awesome. I was so relieved to find GRASS. it revived my hope in GIS. It brought me back in the game. I am so thankful that all the developers are continuing to work on GRASS and make it the best out there.
Top Accolades go out to all the open source guys, developers especially but also the users. this movement is too strong to die or be squashed by inferior, proprietary software. Let ESRI feel the squeeze. Let the revolution begin.
On 11/11/05, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com > wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Trevor Wiens wrote:
The common reply to this is that ArcView runs better under Windows and is
easier to use, so it is worth it to buy a license and have no control over
your software. To this, I would suggest that the appropriate counter is
that if users want Windows integration and ease of use, they should buy
Manifold GIS, for 1/10 the cost of ArcView and is considerably more
powerful than the base ArcView product.If I may be permitted peripheral comments again, I have two to offer.
I first learned of GIS in 1987 when we used it at the state agency where I
was a technical program manager. I quickly learned that most people wanted
pretty maps, not deep technical analyses. I think that’s still the case in
many situations: make the map sufficiently visually attractive and no one
questions the quality of the data.One problem with “ease of use” is the emphasis on the wrong aspect. When I
was more heavily involved with GIS than I am now (my current business focus
being on the application of approximate reasoning models to environmental
issues), I found too many people who “knew” GIS because they knew how to
operate the program controls. My response was that teaching someone how to
use a word processor did not make her a writer; teaching someone how to use a
graphics program does not make him an artist. There’s a huge difference
between knowing how to do things with a computer application and knowing what
to do to get the proper results. I’ve seen this mis-match with a lot of folks
who do multiple T-tests rather than ANOVA on their data because they don’t
understand statistics, but they have a computer application that “does”
statistics for them.Your analogy is very pertinent: understand what you’re doing before you use
a tool that takes away the tedium of calculation.Carpe weekend,
Rich
–
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Author of “Quantifying Environmental
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. ™ | Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic”
< http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
Hi all,
First, awesome e-mail Mr. M S!
Well, in my opinion the OSS/GIS revolution had already started.
I tell this because with my distro (Poseidon Linux) I have meet (personally or by e-mail) tons of people that wants to get out of GIS proprietary software (Arcview/ArcGIS and ArcIMS).
MapServer is rapidly becoming a standard here in Brazil. Just an example: Tyler Mitchell is here for a national MapServer congress.
And QGIS is also hitting ArcView pretty well just because they do nearly the same GIS things. Also I and Arthur Nanni translated it to pt_BR to make it easier for our people.
Talking about GRASS is also going to hit ArcGIS, just because some people already saw that GRASS have awesome tools for analyses.
But it needs with a easier/better UI and localized version to pt_BR (without this is really difficult to make a big switch, because many GIS techs don’t know English very well). That’s my opinion.
ESRI is also with an eye on Linux/GRASS. They are slowly putting some Servers product for Linux (ArcIMS etc), and also ArcExplorer.
Anyway, GIS people on Brazil are first going to QGIS/GRASS to don’t pay licences anymore. But I saw many that had realized that QGIS/GRASS is not only cheaper, is BETTER!
Good night GRASS folks!
Cheers,
–
Christian dos Santos Ferreira
Oceanographer. Msc.
Lab. of Fisheries Research and Hydroacustics
Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG)
Rio Grande - RS - Brazil
Tel +55 (53) 32336528
Website: http://poseidon.furg.br
Hi all,
I have been teaching GIS using GRASS for years and definitively good students
adquire a better knowledge about what GIS is than using ArcView. However the
ironic result is that when they have a job, and they have it easely, they
have to work with ArcView "because it is what their employers bought". At the
end they do the stuff in GRASS and show it with Arc.View!
Best regards
Paco
--
Francisco Alonso Sarría
Departamento de Geografía (Area de Geografía Física)
Universidad de Murcia. Campus La Merced
E-30001 Murcia
Telfn: +34 968364357
www.um.es/geograf/sigmur
Hi,
I'm leading GIS practical works for students and we use ArcGIS. Most
of students after those practical works have no clue why they where
pressing all those buttons, they even have no clue what is coordinate
system and why they should define it. Formally they are educated GIS
users, but in reality they are dumb as brick. I have to agree - easy
to use systems may lead to dumb users - You can do all stuff without
understanding why You are doing this.
On 11. 11. 2005. we had so called "GIS Day". I was there with
presentation about Open Source. There was some interest from some huge
(in local terms 
companies about OS GIS solutions. Most of interest
was about MapServer - looks like this will be OS GIS tool No. 1. in
nearest future. Most of ppl are not ready for open source and are not
ready to think, but I'm doing my best to show that OS GIS can be used
instead of closed source tools.
As I see, GDAL/OGR has Geodatabase support, as ESRI has published its
shema, only problem - it can be accessed via ODBC. There is a mdb read
library on SF.net. We need someone to put all this stuff in one peace.
With thanks to all OS developers and supporters,
Maris Nariss.
2005/11/13, Francisco Alonso <alonsarp@um.es>:
Hi all,
I have been teaching GIS using GRASS for years and definitively good students
adquire a better knowledge about what GIS is than using ArcView. However the
ironic result is that when they have a job, and they have it easely, they
have to work with ArcView "because it is what their employers bought". At the
end they do the stuff in GRASS and show it with Arc.View!Best regards
Paco
--
Francisco Alonso Sarría
Departamento de Geografía (Area de Geografía Física)
Universidad de Murcia. Campus La Merced
E-30001 Murcia
Telfn: +34 968364357
www.um.es/geograf/sigmur
On 11/12/05, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> wrote:
I over-simplified my brief answer. GRASS is -- or could be -- a valuable
business tool once it was developed with a modern UI. I'm not starting a
flame war here, and I will not respond to more posts defending why it's still
the way it was 20+ years ago. I went through that years ago and no longer
really care.
GRASS should be the same way. A user should have the power of the command
line available, but have an easy-to-learn GUI front end. Then it will be as
suitable to the business/commercial market as it is to governments,
academicians, and reseachers who are not under time pressure to produce
results. Because GRASS is available under the GPL, any of us are able to
create the tool we need.
I am quite upset to see that you are trying to convince other users that
GRASS does not have modern and easy to use GUI.
Can you give any examples where ArcView is easier to use than QGIS/GRASS?
That would be constructive and and we could work in that direction
but repeating still that GRASS's GUI is like it was 20 years ago is
simply nonsens.
I don't want to here any general reasoning, tell me few basic tasks
which cannot
be done in easy way in QGIS/GRASS with respect to ArcView.
You have not seen that or it is not enough easy to use for you?:
http://mpa.itc.it/radim/qgis/newmapset4.png
http://mpa.itc.it/radim/qgis/mapcalc.png
http://mpa.itc.it/radim/qgis/composer-picture1.png
etc.
Radim