[cad-linux] Re: cad-linux still alive [if only on life-support...]
- From: Eric Wilhelm <ewilhelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:58:24 -0800
Hi John,
# from john kosty
# on Tuesday 24 February 2009 18:00:
>Still live [and -- sort of -- alive...] lo' these many moons... But
> I've attached a screendump of the list's archive page: a little
> depressing to see just how inactive this one's been for the past
> couple o' years.
I don't think my subscription has worked for a while now. At least, it
seems that my test message did not get through this morning. If others
have a similar problem, that might explain the list activity issue?
> I attend my local LUG maybe two times per year -- ... Usually
> generates maybe five minutes of conversation and then nothing until I
> go again six months later.
Perhaps you should offer to give a presentation on the state of CAD
tools for Linux? All of our local tech/programming user group leaders
(of which I am one) are constantly looking for speakers.
>I agree w/ Phrostie: PythonCAD & BRL-CAD appear to have the most
> ongoing activity and most promising futures in this arena. Eric
> Willhelm [Wilhelm?] of PythonCAD has been, by and large, a one-man
> show and has soldiered on for some time now.
Correction 1: PythonCAD is largely written by Art Haas. I've been
involved, but not written much code.
Correction 2: Wilhelm. ;-) And my project is mostly VectorSection,
among other things. http://vectorsection.org/
In both cases, mostly a one-man show. But at the end of the day, aren't
we all? I've been working in consulting and contract development for
several years now and still haven't found an opportunity to put a team
to work on open source code in earnest. I have seen more than one
occasion where companies were sinking serious development resources
into MS and AutoDesk based implementations of custom software, but
getting even 1% of that sort of funding into projects built on open
tech is like pulling teeth. I think the underlying tech is at the
point where an amazing amount of functionality can be delivered for a
fraction of the cost of conventional proprietary add-ons, even if you
have to build a new part of the foundation on every project.
I'm speaking specifically about custom and special-purpose software
though. I think the general-purpose application can grow out of that,
but what I do for a living is to solve problems. In most of those
cases, less than 10% of the functionality needed is specific to the
client, so the other 90% goes on the CPAN where they don't have to
maintain it alone.
I now return to my regularly scheduled programming...
--Eric
--
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit."
--Ginsberg's Restatement of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
