[cad-linux] Re: OT: Open data formats (continuation of previous thread)
- From: "Jeffrey McGrew" <JMcGrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:22:56 -0700
> Allegory, although interesting, doesn't provide the detached=20
> perspective I think is necessary in the search for a=20
> solution. You've indicated assumed drawbacks with ownership=20
> of a standards by public corporations interested in the=20
> market -- perhaps because the officers obligation to act in=20
> the interest of the firm must clash with the interests of the=20
> firm's customers. I don't believe that's true, but let's=20
> assume it is.
In a perfect world, you are right: this is not true, for corporations =
would compete on merit alone. The better product would prevail, and the =
market would decide what was best. However, this is not an entirely free =
market, nor a perfect world. Corporations regularly clash between the =
needs of the shareholders and the needs of the customers, to the point =
where government regulation has to step in sometimes to insure that the =
customers aren't fleeced. Look at the Auto industry's safety record; =
safety wasn't a concern until the government stepped into it with laws =
in the sixties, and they fought it tooth and nail for it was going to =
cost too much to make the cars safer. Now people expect cars to be safe. =
Look at the anti-trust proceedings in the past with IBM and Ma Bell. =
Look at the fair use laws that came into existence when media could be =
copied with consumer-grade electronics reasonably well.
Or, another example from your company. They decided that Lightscape =
wasn't a profitable enough software package, and wasn't selling as well =
as they wanted. Combine that with the fact that most people that were =
using it were using it as an add-on to VIZ, and that other competing 3D =
software packages (Form-Z, Truespace) were offering the same features =
that VIZ lacked that Lightscape made up for (radiosity and IGS lighting) =
built into the software. So they combined lightscape into VIZ 4. This is =
a great thing for most of the people, for it allows any VIZ user to use =
radisotity without having to learn a second program. However, lightscape =
being dropped for VIZ left a lot of lighting designers I know in the =
cold, for they used Lightscape and it's features in their work; now they =
have to buy VIZ, learn a new program, and loose certain features that =
lightscape had that VIZ doesn't if they want to stay on the upgrade =
wagon. How is this serving those customers?
Or AutoDesk has never opened the DWG format. This of what a boon that =
would be to the AEC industry! Damn! Anyone's software could use my =
AutoCAD-created data natively! I could use non-AutoDesk products with =
AutoDesk products flawlessly. I could use AutoCAD data in ways that =
AutoDesk hasn't thought of, like to drive a dynamic real-time art piece =
or on-line real-time 3D models of a school I'm designing so that the =
kids in that school district could log in and make redlines and =
suggestions to the design process. think of how cool that would be! But =
AutoDesk has never opened the dwg format, and never will, for then they =
will truly be competing on merit and not via legacy or licensing =
agreements. They really will have to have the best CAD package out =
there. Which is a lot more work and money and a lot less stable and =
predicable for the bean counters. =20
> The alternative of standards ownership by public corporations=20
> (non-profit, or otherwise) with _no_ interest in the market=20
> would assumedly have drawbacks as well. First of all, the=20
> officers of a non-profit are under equal obligation to the=20
> firm as there for-profit brethren. I'm familiar with the=20
> operation of several non-profits (education funds, private=20
> charitable trusts, etc.) and I can tell you they concentrate=20
> very seriously on self-preservation. It can only do good so=20
> long as it exists. Secondly, lacking direct interest in the=20
> market the owners may easily be distracted (or disinterested)=20
> in advancing the users' good in an aggressive manner.
This is very true. But I think it to be a lesser evil. Being driven for =
self-preservation is not a problem I think. Preserving one's self at the =
expense or exploitation of another, or being driven by greed is. Two =
things that are very much a reality in the for-profit corporate sector.
I'm not anti-corporate, or anti-profit; mind you, quite the contrary. =
But just as I would only trust to keep my money in a FDIC insured bank =
that I know has to meet certain federal standards, I want to keep my =
data in a similar environment. This is currently unavailable, for there =
is no warranty, guarantee, or even regulation in the software industry. =
As an soon-to-be Architect, I've had to take tests, meet government =
requirements for education and work experience, and more. When I'm an =
Architect, I'll be legally responsible, just like a doctor or a lawyer, =
for any and all work I do, for life. It's a big deal to be an architect, =
that's why we are trusted with public health and safety when it comes to =
buildings, and why we're the ones that can stamp and sign drawings. =
Currently there is no equivalent in the software industry, as a matter =
of fact in order to use any software I must sign away some or most of my =
rights and have no guarantee that the software will function, no matter =
what was promised to me by the company that made it. And anyone can =
stand up and call themselves a software developer, no matter who they =
may be or what kind of training they had.
So in other words, I'm on my own when it comes to software. It's my =
responsibility to make certain that it works.=20
So why trust a for-profit company when they have no legal reason to even =
live up to their promises? If my car fails, and hurts me, I can sue. If =
my bank looses all my money, I can sue. If AutoCAD corrupts a drawing =
file, I'm on my own, and no one else can help me, for nobody else but =
AutoDesk can natively talk in DWG. At least with a open standard SOMEONE =
else would have made something that could get my data, or at the worse I =
could hire a programmer to write a little tool for me that could pull =
the data. And if the DWG was created with R12, and I can only open it =
with R12 due to some problem, I would be in real trouble- I can't even =
run R12 legally even if I have the disk around because I upgraded and my =
licensing agreement says that my old copy is invalid. I would have to =
find someone with a still-valid copy of R12!=20
> A specific problem has been presented: how to preserve access=20
> to data over the very long term. I don't know the solution,=20
> but I'm working on it. I think DWF is a well-designed=20
> solution given my understanding of the problem. My fear is=20
> that 5 years down the road we may discover that our solution=20
> of today is wrong -- it isn't in my companies interest to=20
> invest in something that won't work. Neither is it in our=20
> users' interest. That's why I'm on this list.
The solution is IFC, an independent and open standard for AEC =
information, or some other open and company-independent format. =
Otherwise it's just the same stupid 'James Bond Supervillian scheme to =
rule the world' crap. The MAIN reason that almost everyone I know bought =
AutoCAD is for DWG compatibility, and not because it's the best package =
out there. Why would AutoDesk not leverage it's future formats in the =
same way?
Jeffrey McGrew
Other related posts:
