[cad-linux] Re: Open-source Parametric software for Architect [OT]

I believe there is room for both OpenSource and commercial software. The 
solution to the perpetual upgrade issue is to have independent data 
transfer standards.

In my office we still use Windows 95 and Office 97 because they do 
everything we need. We don't have a lot of crashes with them once they are 
stable (not once per month with 8 machines). These machines do very basic 
office work (accounting, WP etc). The big costs associated with operating 
systems occur every time you change. Keep upgrading and you find all of the 
problems over a month or two (or 3) after each upgrade. Or longer if you 
rush in before the first service pack! Our 95 network works just fine as 
long as you don't change anything. This is the cost that made me stop 
upgrading years ago.

The problems come when you have high performance requirements like CAD & 
graphics, run many programs at once, add new software and have to exchange 
documents with others.

Let me relate some experiences:-

1.   I have recently had to upgrade from AutoCad LT 97 to LT 2002 because 
customers and suppliers keep sending me documents in later formats despite 
repeated requests on my part for R13 or R14 files. LT 97 does everything I 
wanted from a CAD program, I don't want 3D and I don't want to spend time 
relearning how to use the software. I am particularly annoyed that standard 
commands have been changed from 97 to 2002. For example, the changes to the 
Leader function have added an extra keystroke/mouse click for no obvious 
benefit and I find this very annoying. I had no reason to upgrade except 
that I was forced to by compatibility issues. I seriously object to this as 
do many others. The same happens with Office and other programs. I also 
object to the fact that I could not upgrade my LT 97 but had to buy another 
license. The poor supported life for software is a serious issue for me and 
one that motivates me to look elsewhere for products.

2.   I have been experimenting with alternative office suites and for the 
low level requirements of the majority of my staff there are low cost or 
free options available on Windows and Linux OS's that mean that MS Office 
is dead in our organisation except that we may maintain one licence for 
file conversion purposes.

3.  We are experimenting with Linux and I anticipate moving the majority of 
our machines to Linux in the next year if we can solve the one remaining 
problem. There are training issues and usability issues, plus problems with 
our accounting system (a good OSS accounting system may be a winner in the 
long term) that prevent a change over now. I hope that Wine will eventually 
resolve the accounting program problems and allow us to make the move.

4.  If ever there were reasons to move away from MS operating systems it is 
the lack of stability & lack of security. It is the operating system that 
produces the most problems with the regular and incompatible upgrades, 
predatory use of the operating system to disadvantage both users and 
competitors and this is where an OpenSource operating system produces the 
greatest benefits.

I have two Windows 2000 machines (desktop and notebook) that are behaving 
erratically. I have just spent this weekend reloading windows from scratch 
onto my notebook as it would no longer download emails without locking up. 
I was experiencing regular problems loading Office 97 programs (Excel & 
Word), AutoCad LT periodically crashes and Opera regularly froze if I had 
more than 1 or 2 windows open. This is my main work machine. There were 
other problems, sometimes the speed slowed right down.

So, I have had the dubious pleasure of swearing at Microsoft for hours as I 
try to rebuild the system and reload the software I need to function. 
Getting the right drivers on for the hardware takes quite a while as Win 2K 
doesn't correctly identify the hardware. As you can see I have my email 
working but there are still hours to go. Gimp won't load due to some 
component missing (though I started from the beginning) and many other 
programs are yet to be reinstalled.

When I loaded Suse 8.0 onto my test notebook it was less trouble to install 
than Win 2K has been so far. I have to say that MS is losing the battle for 
ease of installation. What a shame :)

In the next week or so when I decide to rebuild my desktop machine it will 
have Suse 8.0 as the base operating system and most likely VM Ware to run 
Win 2K. The next Notebook will go the same way unless Wine make it 
unnecessary to run Windows at all. No Windows XP machine will ever enter my 
doors.

Our guest from Autodesk should take note. As a user I detest forced 
upgrades, I detest buggy software (but LT has been quite good to me), I 
want freedom of choice. Linux appears to give me that to a far greater degree.

On the issue of OpenSource, there are good and bad points. It works well 
for the operating system and as a commercial user I believe we need an 
independent operating system free from commercial control. The problems 
with OpenSource for software are more serious. While you can maintain the 
software yourself if the writer loses interest this is not an ideal 
solution and not one available to many users, parfticularly small users. It 
will also not guarantee steady product improvement. I have no interest in 
spending my time on this, I want to run my business. You can see the 
problem when you look around at the OpenSource projects that die. The users 
are just as disenfranchised as when a when a commercial software company 
goes bust. There is also a lack of user focus with some OS software, it can 
be driven more by the programmer's whim than what the user's want. There 
are many software paradigms that cover the range from OSS to Freeware, 
Sharware and full commercial software. I use software from many sources, 
what ever is most suited to my purposes. If LT is ported to Linux it is a 
nice solution for my purposes for me to pay the commercial price for it. 
Even better if it complies with an open data standard so that I only 
upgrade when there is a substantial improvement that I need or want, not 
just a file compatibility issue.

Of course, if someone produced an OSS Cad program with the capabilities of 
LT 97 & file compatibility, and wanted to charge me a reasonable fee for 
the use of it that would be OK too. The OSS guys still need to be paid.

So, for me, OpenSource operating systems, Open data standards and then let 
the software guys do what ever they like. If the OSS guys do a good job 
(Apache!) then that is great, but if they don't (CAD) then we may need to 
pay for what we need.

David Meyer


At 04:08 AM 15/09/2002, you wrote:

>my emails are somewhat more basic I'm afraid :-)
>
>On Sat, 2002-09-14 at 17:59, Vishal wrote:
>[snip]
> > But then why would you want to switch to GNU-Linux? AutoCad works well,
> > MSWindows works great too, ok, maybe a few GPFs here and there.. but so
> > what?
>
>I know what you're saying and I'm not disagring but just thought I'd
>point something out what software stability costs.
>
>If there's 6 of us in the company and each Windows machine crashes twice
>a day, loosing 10 minutes of work, taking you another 10 minutes to
>recreate that work and perhaps 2.5 minutes for the reboot, thats 45
>minutes lost perday x 6 people in my old company, is 4hours 30min lost
>worktime per day from OS crashes. I've not exagerated on the number of
>crashes. Now times that by your hourly pay and the days per year you do
>CAD work and you get an idea of how much being forced to use a rubbish
>OS is costing small businesses.
>
>You could set your autosave to a much shorter time period of course,
>(every 5minutes? 2minutes?) but then it becomes more inconvenient (I
>seem to remember it used to autosave at what seemed like the most
>awkward moments :-)
>
>[more snippin]
>
> > Apart, I think if even one open source initiative can be made successful,
> > there would be developers of proprietory software coming forward to develop
> > extensions.
>
>Yes, I prefer very much, the practice of people like Sun when they enter
>initatives that help Open Source like OpenOffice.org. I could see a lot
>of companies being amazed that Sun would provide a licence to their code
>that allows a potentially competitive product to be created along aside
>their own commercial product, but in reality it's working great.
>
>I can live with commercial software when I have a choice between it and
>an open source alternative, and usually they both have slightly
>different qualities.
>
>And of course I like completely free products that allow commercial
>companies to survive through providing support and packaging. (I believe
>Snort's supposed to be quite sucessful like this?)
>
>I think big commercial companies have a place in Open Source software,
>and it's kind of handy to have them on your side when some other large
>corportation tries to pull a fast one (eg MS).
>
>Guy

Other related posts: