Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:20:53 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, Stephen Hilton <nospam@hiltonbsd.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: Hi!Dear FreeBSD! Message-ID: <3E5376A5.9EB8FC3@mindspring.com> References: <IPEDKJGCDFHOPEFKLIDHKEJDCCAA.paul@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Robinson wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > None of those maps are clickable. They're actually just *tiny*
> > PNGs of maps-with-pins-in-them, with no obvious correlation to
> > real location data associated with PERL (e.g. number of pins is
> > not equal to number of page entries, in most cases, and the pins
> > for Columbs, Dayton, and other Ohio locations all pops up at the
> > same pixel location, etc.).
>
> Can I just point out Terry, that this is a map of Perl user groups? We're
> not NORAD and they aren't suspected sites of WMD that we need to target. :-)
Sure, if you'll let me point out again that the original poster
wanted the maps to be clickable. 8-) 8-).
> > It's really unfortunate that no one seems to be willing to put
> > out the server resources to do real GIS mapping, e.g. using the
> > data specifications at:
>
> Right, I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but are you honestly suggesting
> that somebody writes a GIS based map rendering system using a relatively
> complicated set of standards so that people can get 3D representations of
> where the nearest Perl Mongers group is?
Nope. We could care less about where the Perl groups are, we
want the FreeBSD folks. 8-).
A GIS map rendering system would be a very nice thing, given that
people keep asking for applications which require a GIS map
rendering system, instead of calling for the missing tools that
would be needed to create such a thing.
IMO, it actually would not be that difficult a thing to implement;
the big issue to address would be correlation of projections of
data points to projection origin coordinates, standard parallels,
scale, and projection type. A map wonk could do these rather
easily... heck, *I* could do these rather easily, if I wanted to
burn the time on it: it's no harder than a ray tracer, for example.
> I'm actually writing a proposal at the moment that might go up to BSDCon or
> maybe somewhere else entitled "Why Open Source Software will Ultimately Fail
> in a Commercial Context". The core argument is that as OSS developers are
> unpaid, they'll work on whatever they want - i.e. what they think is cool or
> what they need to get a particular job done. Nobody here at the age of 15
> thought they wanted to write word processors or spreadsheets when they grew
> up, right? Do you mind if I cite this example anonymously as a
> re-enforcement of my argument? :-)
Your conclusion is correct, but your argument is flawed (or it at
least doesn't agree with any of my arguments 8-)). I don't think
this would be a good example, because if you used it, I might have
to do the work necessary just to spite you, and because a member of
the USGS EROS Data Center suggested it to me once, on a plane trip,
and gave me a CDROM of all the Open Source stuff they were already
using. 8-).
> Seriosuly Terry, I can't tell if you were joking or not, but nobody is going
> to play with opengis stuff, just because it would be a "neat" way of showing
> where user groups are. :-)
I didn't expect them to; I rather expect that the people who play
with it are going to be USGS employees, NOA employees, or NASA
employees, where it relates to something they have to do for their
"day job" anyway. The only thing the FreeBSD folks would be giving
them is a set of sample coordinates, and a bunch of technical people
who would "Oohhh!" and "Aaahhh!" at their work after it's done.
Add to that the almost criminally insane advocacy of XML for storing
"all data, everywhere!", and you have the necessary mix for at least
a core set of people to involve themselves in a project.
FWIW: the important gateing factors on any Open Source project are:
1) Motivation (a problem to solve, that people can agree on)
2) Working code (something that comes close to solving the
problem, or from which people can see a solution)
3) Community (communications and peers to provide a context in
which the work can take place)
A lot of people have #1, so they declare a Source Forge project, try
to cookie-cutter #3 (impossible to do), and leverage having #1 and #3
into someone creating #2 (also impossible to do).
Mozilla had #1, some of #3, and almost none of #2 for a very, very long
time, and it's still suffering the backlash from it (for example). BSD
did not take off until Bill Jolitz made it boot. Fetchmail sort of works,
but no one cares. Etc..
As a matter of fact, I claim that, given any #2, I can *find* #1,
and *create* #3.
It's trivially easy to start Open Source projects by the dozens, if
you are even a halfway decent coder: just make something good enough
to work, but lacking enough to convince a group of people that they
could (and should) improve it, rewrite it, or otherwise do better.
That sounds like most modern commercial software, to me, since it's
got legacy design factors from the 1980's/1990's causing it to need
documentation, support, and training materials as part of the (no
longer relevent) copy protection systems that grew up around the
software developement process.
Seriously, it took a *lot* of skill to come up with the first Word
Processor that needed documentation for people to be able to use it
("PC Write"). The author, Bob Wallace, said at one convention where he
spoke, "Software...", gestured expressively above and to the sides of
his head, "...is all up here. I sell manuals.".
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E5376A5.9EB8FC3>