Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0cf8612b2e1e | Hacker News Reader

Is this on its way to pushing out the incumbent proprietary solution and becoming the standard a la Blender? Or is this more LibreOffice -it’s there, but missing so much functionality/polish that an expert will immediately find blockers vs the status quo?

View on HN

LibreOffice vs Office 365/Google Drive is probably the more relevant comparison.

I won’t comment on market share, but even if theoretically QGIS totally displaced ArcGIS Pro/ArcMap/ArcGIS on the desktop, the arena of competition has shifted to ArcGIS Online and its competitors. And once you’re in ArcGIS Online, Pro becomes the convenient choice for desktop editing.

LibreOffice could be miles better than Office on desktop, but the competition is lost because Office on desktop is just an accessory for Office 365 (which competes with Google Docs/Drive).

Disclosure: I work at Esri.

That's an insightful nuance. I've seen you just create divisions in organisations because while it is a really fully featured desktop application, it implies a way of working that doesn't play well with the cloud, which creates barriers between experimenting and production.

I don't think the comparison is quite apt, because while LibreOffice has no support for collaborative workflows (short of error-prone shared drives), QGIS can connect to quite a few geospatial databases, with third parties offering plugins for their own cloud platforms.

It would be nice to have better support for browser-based sharing and editing, but the desktop-based parts are there already.

That’s an important point. The collaboration model is more complex in GIS because it’s not just documents (maps and map projects) but the underlying data is coming from databases that are independently editable.

The comparison still works in some ways though, because ArcGIS is selling you both the software (ArcGIS Pro, Map Viewer, Field Maps, etc) and the backing services (hosted feature services, basemaps, locators, etc), similar to how Office is selling you data hosting, sharing, and mobile + web app integration.

You can accomplish the same things with QGIS, GeoServer, QField, etc, but then you’re in the position of building a GIS from parts. Whereas with ArcGIS, setting up a new map and database (feature service) for data collection is a point-click workflow.

Of course you pay a premium for that level of integration.

This is spot on. I'd love it if it was possible to get the integration with the QGIS ecosystem. It could open source integrations or even a commercial offering that just joins things up in a cohesive way just something that enables a more smooth collaboration model.

> That’s an important point. The collaboration model is more complex in GIS because it’s not just documents (maps and map projects) but the underlying data is coming from databases that are independently editable.

Theres other complexity too, like 'how to avoid silent failures in ArcGIS Pro and Hosting Server'.

Case in point: say you use amazon RDS. URL for that object is name.customerID.environment.amazonrds.com . Its a long URL. Now you go into hostingServer/ArcGIS/manager and go set this as a data source. You can validate the data source and everything's fine...

Until your analysts add projects in RDS and go past some secret legacy arbitrary length of DNS+path. And if you do? Things will silently break, data won't come into ArcGIS Pro right. Anomalous errors.

Now, if you change the RDS DNS name to an IP address, all those problems go away! Everything's fixed, analysts are happy, and none are the wiser.

Until, Amazon does maintenance on your RDS, changing your IP address. Then, your environment then breaks for no good reason, and you have to be keenly aware to go to server manager and MANUALLY rerun data store check.

And no, ArcGIS monitor can't do this.

And... Dont even start me on 80070035. That "premium" support ticket was rotting for 5 weeks, until I ran into an engineer on LinkedIN, who solved it in 30 seconds.

I work in the mass appraisal space, and I use QGIS all the time. The professional alternative is ESRI's ArcGIS.

A lot of shops I know (private and public) will use ArcGIS still, but I'm noticing an increasing number of people (particularly younger researchers/analysts) who are exclusively using QGIS.

QGIS is powerful and full featured, but it is admittedly a bit rusty around the edges, especially when working with very large datasets. If they keep working on fixing some of the sharpest edges I think it will go on to have a good future. Just in the past few years I've noticed significant improvement.

In many ways it feels like Blender -- long ignored and dismissed, but slowly but surely improved over time, and then suddenly became quite a big deal.

If companies that use ESRI cancelled one license a year and instead sponsored qgis development with the money... https://qgis.org/funding/

I think the answer depends on the country: In places where the government uses QGIS it is like Blender. In places where ESRI has a stronghold it is like LibreOffice.

I work at a university and we do a lot of moving data around, inspecting the files and columns, scripting, etc. so we have everyone use QGIS. Governments and other major consumers have open-ended long-term contracts for whatever Esri products they can think of, so those are solid.

For me the real ongoing question is the role of MapBox, MapLibre, to some extent Google Maps API, and other web-first solutions. It's difficult for Esri to connect with the average web developer or researcher who just wants to start with clickable pins on a map.

It is becoming more and more Blender. Europe relies on it more than Americans, but most GIS specialists use both this and ESRI.

Probably closer to the first situation. It curb stomped ArcGIS in the geographic information system community. When I started working with GIS at work, expensive ESRI products were default in this market, a la matlab in another field. Most coleages of mine had not heard about QGIS. Now QGIS is ubiquitous. It did to ArcGIS and its countless paid add on modules what scipy/numpy did to matlab.

The scipy/numpy to matlab is a good example. In my opinion it is on its way but in many places the timing is more like 2010-2013 where a lot of people knew python was the future but universities still used only Matlab.

>It curb stomped ArcGIS in the geographic information system community

Maybe for home or casual use, sure. I use a ~$4500/y Esri license level and it's worth every penny.

Also, plenty of people are still using matlab!

I totally disagree. I switched off this license, and also ALSO saved additional because Spatial Analyst costs extra (all included by default in QGIS)

Interesting. I see a lot of people around me using QGIS and all kinds of both free and paid gis tools. I never worked with ArcGIS, except for importing their files, but it seems to be universally loathed around here, even if licensing and money is not the problem. So what are the places where ArcGIS does better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com