Newsgroups: info.grass.user
Path: ront
From: ront@picea.CFNR.ColoState.EDU (Ronald Thomas)
Subject: Re: your mail (arc vs grass)
Sender: news@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (News Account)
Message-ID: <CqtpFw.1H99@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 13:28:43 GMT
References: <199406030211.TAA28383@netcom.com> <9406030624.AA27245@devin.fns.uniba.sk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: niwot.cnr.colostate.edu
Organization: College of Natural Resources, Colo. State Univ.
Lines: 15
In article <9406030624.AA27245@devin.fns.uniba.sk> grassu-list@max.cecer.army.mil writes:
I think the best way is to keep both systems (or if possible more systems)
to combine the best things from them in solving your specific problems.
And for GRASS should be the best to build those its parts which are poor
in other systems and in such manner make it attractive for GIS users.
I agree, because GRASS's flexibility and ability to meet new needs will
not only make it an effective tool, but hopefully the presence of an
evolving GIS will keep the third party GIS developers on their toes, adding
tools/modules to their products.
Ronald Thomas ront@meeker.cfnr.colostate.edu
Natural Resource Spec. (GIS) ^^^ Phone: 303-586-1285
Resources Management Division ^^ ^^^^^ FAX: 303-586-1310
Rocky Mountain National Park ^^^ ^^^^^^^ Estes Park, CO 80517