Any CAD package for linux ??
al...@hotmail.com
Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux?
I prefer something which is free and source code is available.
thanks in advance
al
Johan Kjellander
I don't think so. The nearest I know
is VARKON (see below) wich is free
for Linux but without sources.
VARKON can import and export DXF.
--
Johan Kjellander, Microform AB
http://www.microform.se (VARKON/English)
http://www.microform.se/toan (Sailing/Swedish)
Maurizio Ferrari
In message <34F7C437...@microform.se>
Johan Kjellander <jo...@microform.se> wrote:
> al...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux?
> > I prefer something which is free and source code is available.
> >
> > thanks in advance
> >
> > al
>
> I don't think so. The nearest I know
> is VARKON (see below) wich is free
> for Linux but without sources.
>
> VARKON can import and export DXF.
>
Bentley's Microstation is available for academic users for a low price.
The DOS CD contains the Linux version as well
It is very expensive if you want the commercial version and they also say
that the Linux version is not really supported...
Maurizio
--
Office: Galileo Engineering Via Zacchetti 6 I-42100 Reggio Emilia Italy
phone/fax:+39 522 920496
Home: Maurizio Ferrari Via Pareto 12 I-42020 Albinea RE Italy
phone/fax:+39 522 347118
John Chapin
In <34F733...@hotmail.com> al...@hotmail.com writes:
>Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux?
>I prefer something which is free and source code is available.
Actually, there was a commercial port of MicroStation -- if you can
believe it -- available for about $3500 from Bentley Systems... There
were STEEP student discounts available from Bentley, last time I checked.
I expect you could make initial contact at www.bentley.com.
John Chapin jch...@panix.com
Robin S. Socha
>> Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux? I prefer something
>> which is free and source code is available.
> Actually, there was a commercial port of MicroStation [...]
What about AC3D?
<http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/andy/ac3d.html>
Looking pretty good.
Robin
--
Robin S. Socha
Political Science Dept., Bonn University
Masochist: Windows programmer with a smile!
Kari Davidsson
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:41:41 -0600, al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux?
>I prefer something which is free and source code is available.
>
>thanks in advance
>
>al
There is also bentley microstation (name probably incorrect). The
problem is that it is only student version. But maybe you are a lucky
student (or just lucky that knows a student 8-) ).
I dont know prices or the quality of the product. I have new used it
only seen their name pop here from time to time.
K.D.
Arnim Littek
In article <m3vhty1...@sushi.uni-bonn.de>,
Robin S. Socha <ro...@franck.pc.uni-koeln.de> wrote:
>> John Chapin <jch...@panix.com> writes:
>>> In <34F733...@hotmail.com> al...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>>> which is free and source code is available.
>
>What about AC3D?
><http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/andy/ac3d.html>
>
One of the principal authors of it is participating in a Linux-based
open source CAD development that is just getting off the ground.
FWIW,
Arnim.
--
Arnim Littek ar...@actrix.gen.nz
Actrix Networks Ltd. fax +64-4-801-5335
uucp/PPP/SLIP/BBS accounts tel +64-4-801-5225
Prasanth Kumar
Robin S. Socha wrote:
>
> > John Chapin <jch...@panix.com> writes:
> >> In <34F733...@hotmail.com> al...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >> Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux? I prefer something
> >> which is free and source code is available.
> > Actually, there was a commercial port of MicroStation [...]
>
> What about AC3D?
> <http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/andy/ac3d.html>
>
<snip>
AC3D can't do dimensioning and many other features necessary for a
minimal CAD system. That being said, AC3D looks pretty good for 3d
models for visualizing purposes.
John Chapin
>In message <34F7C437...@microform.se>
> Johan Kjellander <jo...@microform.se> wrote:
>> al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there a CAD package like autoCAD for linux?
>> > I prefer something which is free and source code is available.
>> >
>> > thanks in advance
>> >
>> > al
>>
>> I don't think so. The nearest I know
>> is VARKON (see below) wich is free
>> for Linux but without sources.
>>
>> VARKON can import and export DXF.
>>
>Bentley's Microstation is available for academic users for a low price.
>The DOS CD contains the Linux version as well
>It is very expensive if you want the commercial version and they also say
>that the Linux version is not really supported...
>Maurizio
>--
>Office: Galileo Engineering Via Zacchetti 6 I-42100 Reggio Emilia Italy
> phone/fax:+39 522 920496
>Home: Maurizio Ferrari Via Pareto 12 I-42020 Albinea RE Italy
> phone/fax:+39 522 347118
There was also a 3d modeller, called "ac3d"... look at:
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/andy/ac3d.html
but this link may be stale... John Chapin jch...@panix.com
Ben Bergen
If you have any interest in microstation call or write to bentley and
maybe they will start to aknowledge linux as a real OS. I have used the
academic version and there really isn't any difference from the SGI
"professional" version except that bentley refuses to release it.
--
Ben Bergen I/O Green Mountain, Inc.
b...@gmg.com Boulder, CO 80303
Phil.Ch...@bentley.com
In article <350EE398...@nilenet.com>,
Ben Bergen <b...@nilenet.com> wrote:
> If you have any interest in microstation call or write to bentley and
> maybe they will start to aknowledge linux as a real OS. I have used the
> academic version and there really isn't any difference from the SGI
> "professional" version except that bentley refuses to release it.
Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version of
MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to explain
why. Our products are designed specifically for professional users that work
on enterprise-scale engineering projects. Although it is true that we have
Linux ports of MicroStation 95 and MicroStation MasterPiece, they are
available _only_ to academia as they are "unsupported" -- meaning that they
were not subjected to the rigorous and costly software certification effort
that all of our commercial engineering products endure. This is the main
reason why the x86-Linux ports, as they exist now, should not be used in a
commercial production environment. We are not positioning what we've done so
far for the *curiousity seekers*. It is merely one of many steps towards a
possible complete port of our product. As has been the case (and still is), we
are waiting a significant business case to consider completing the port. All
said and done, the things that we go through in order to provide an
engineering solution are very costly. What we have spent so far is but a very
small percentage of the overall cost. It should be noted that, even though
what we have right now may suit the needs of academia, we've just scratched
the surface from a commercial product perspective. Should the engineering
community start adopting Linux as a viable solution for engineering
applications, then we are already well along that path.
FWIW, to date, we have heard of very little commitment that would support an
x86-Linux port that we would be happy to call ready for commercial use (after
all, we have set our standards for our own development efforts very high.) So
far, the total number of commitments that we have received for new commercial
licenses has been remarkably low (on the order of a couple dozen believe it or
not). This indicates that there is little commitment from the engineering
community regarding Linux. This is not something that we are proliferating,
that's just a simple fact that nobody can deny. Maybe that will change -- if
it does, we will more than likely be there. Since we are very keen about what
users want, if there is a significant call for new, commercial licenses of a
Linux port of MicroStation, then we shall reevaluate. True, some people might
view this as a chicken or the egg situation, however, we view our *offering*
as the tail of the dog -- and everyone knows that the tail doesn't wag the
dog. We need a genuine commitment in order to complete the port. Doing such on
our end _before_ a commitment is realized does not guarantee any sort of ROI
for us. Since we are in business for profit (without that, no one benefits),
if we don't see an assured way to make money on our ventures, then they won't
happen. We're sure that anyone can understand this position.
Our business model is to provide quality products for high-end engineering
organizations. Should large-scale engineering organizations commit to Linux in
the future, then we have a good opportunity to explore the possibilities at
that time. In the mean time, if you know of any such organizations that are
willing to make such commitments, then please do feel free to let us know who
they are and what they are willing to commit to -- the latter part is
extremely important in that it will help determine whether or not a commercial
port of MicroStation will ever be realized.
If this sounds too *negative*, our apologies, it is not intended that way --
we do not want to start a flame war or give/infer _any_ sort of indication
that we're slighting anyone. We are also not saying that nothing will happen
in this aspect. What we are saying is that, to date, a *complete*
x86-Linux commercial port hasn't happened due mainly to little or no
commercial commitment from the engineering community. We do understand very
well is that in today's Windows-dominated world, it's rare to find total
platform uniformity when projects are large and particularly when multiple
organizations are involved. We do not get into the never-ending,
never-productive debate about any the relative merits of any particular
platform. Some people will have a strong favorite that they'll defend
unfailingly and take any perceived slight to it as a personal insult. That's
fine, so far be it from us to tell someone that something that they use and
like is not the best thing in the world. We are definitely a multi-platform
software company that produces a multi-platform product for organizations that
need enterprise-wide solutions. Since we have commercial products running on
these OSes where others don't, and we have also committed to the Internet --
recently licensing Java from Sun, convincing us to do a full fledged port
really won't convince the engineering community to go to Linux, but the
opposite may be true.
Thank you.
Phil Chouinard [www.Bentley.com]
PS - If there is anything in this response that you would like further
clarification on, please feel free to identify it and we shall see what we can
do to help out.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Robert Wuest
Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com wrote:
>
> Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version of
> MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to explain
> why. Our products are designed specifically for professional users that work
> on enterprise-scale engineering projects.
[ Big Snip ]
A self-fulfilling prophesy. By not having the Linux version available, engineers
can't even consider it. Worse, those that might actually be in a position to buy
or recommend the Linux version can't even get the academic version because they
aren't students (I'm not, I tried and I can't).
When my engineering department, for the first time in many years, decided to look
around at CAD alternatives, I pretty much kept my mouth shut. I'd have loved to
have microstation (with a Linux version available) become our standard and I use
Linux for all of my software development. But when I need CAD, I reboot into NT
and run Acad for mechanical and packaging design and Accel EDA for electronic
design.
I saw no advantage to pushing for microstation if I would still have to reboot to
run it. Very selfish of me, but I didn't want to climb the learning curve if I
was still goig to be forced to work with ms stuff.
I know two other engineers who tell me they would run Linux if they had a choice,
but they run Acad about 85% of the time and cannot. And they're not radical
enough (like me) to push for change.
I've spoken with some of the evaluation team members, and it's a pretty sure bet
that we will just continue using Acad, upgrading dozens of workstations to
Acad 14 and many to mechanical desktop. Few of the team members knew much or
anything of microstation and the one engineer who had studied it (me) wanted a
Linux version; he stayed quiet. Not having the linux version available silenced
the only voice you would have had (3 Linux stations and 30 to 40 NT stations).
I believe this demonstrates a fundamental flaw in your method for determining the
market for a Linux version. I certainly would not get on your website and say that
we'd buy 40 copies for Linux. I wouldn't even say we'd buy three, because I'd
be misleading you. I could have said it would be considered, which is more than
microstation got in the end. But you have no idea just how many sales you are
really missing, on Linux and other platforms, because the Linux version isn't
there.
-
Robert Wuest, PE Empowered
Sirius Engineering Company by
mailto:rwu...@sire.ddns.org Linux
Stephen R. Savitzky
Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com writes:
> Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version
> of MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to
> explain why. [...] As has been the case (and still is), we are waiting a
> significant business case to consider completing the port. [...] Should the
> engineering community start adopting Linux as a viable solution for
> engineering applications, then we are already well along that path.
> FWIW, to date, we have heard of very little commitment that would support an
> x86-Linux port that we would be happy to call ready for commercial use (after
> all, we have set our standards for our own development efforts very high.) So
> far, the total number of commitments that we have received for new commercial
> licenses has been remarkably low (on the order of a couple dozen believe it or
> not). This indicates that there is little commitment from the engineering
> community regarding Linux.
This is a common, unfortunate instance of the chicken-and-egg phenomenon:
nobody's using Linux because the applications aren't there; the applications
aren't there because nobody's using it.
Most of us in the user community can't do very much about it, except to keep
talking to the application developers in hopes that their "couple of dozen"
requests will rise to whatever they think will be a profitable user base.
BUT: _some_ of us can do something better. If we work for a _big_ company,
and especially one that is already using the product on dozens or hundreds of
Windows boxen or Sun workstations, we can persuade our CIO, VP of engineering,
or whatever that it would save $5000/seat or so to run the same application
under Linux. It's pretty easy to make this argument, especially when you
factor in the cost of the hardware, the software (e.g. NT Workstation), and
the support (how many reboots per week?).
Then you're ready to go to your application vendor and say ``We really like
your product, and we're ready to place an order for 100 more seats IF you can
provide it on Linux. Otherwise we'll go to someone who can...''
I don't want to place the entire burden on the users, though. If you're
working for a company that sells an application, especially a big, expensive
application, push the ``if we build it, they will come'' philosophy. Point
out the marketing opportunity: a customer can buy the same product at the same
price and save thousands of dollars per year by running it under Linux. Point
out the fact that a customer running Linux will save _your_ company hundreds
of dollars per year in support calls they won't have to make (no DLL
conflicts; no mysterious crashes when they try to run some other program at
the same time; no disaster when they upgrade to NT5.0 or Windows 98).
> Our business model is to provide quality products for high-end engineering
> organizations. Should large-scale engineering organizations commit to Linux in
> the future, then we have a good opportunity to explore the possibilities at
> that time.
The fact is that large-scale organizations _are_ beginning to _notice_ Linux.
It's mostly happening at a grass-roots level. They're not likely to _commit_
to it if the applications aren't there. When they are ready to make a
purchase, they will go to whichever application vendor is already shipping the
product. It's one thing for an engineering manager to say to their sales rep
``why don't you try to persuade X to ship their product on Linux; maybe in a
couple of months we'll be able to give you an order.'' It's quite another to
say ``If we buy X and the Sun workstations to run it on, it will cost us $1M;
if we buy Y and run it on Linux it will cost us $500K. Here's the PO for Y.''
--
/ Steve Savitzky \ 1997 Pegasus Award winner: best science song--+ /__
/ h:st...@starport.com \ http://www.starport.com/people/steve/ V /___
\ w:st...@rsv.ricoh.com \ http://www.starport.com/suites/Starport/Filk \___
\_ Kids' page: MOVED ---> http://www.starport.com/places/forKids/ _______\__
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "S" == Stephen R Savitzky <st...@central.starport.com> writes:
S> This is a common, unfortunate instance of the chicken-and-egg
S> phenomenon: nobody's using Linux because the applications aren't
S> there; the applications aren't there because nobody's using it.
It's definately an interesting thing in the CAD market. Microstation
is sold to a much different market than Unigraphics, but I'll bet that
their potential market is still small enough that they can't afford to
go off and do things assuming people will come.
Let me explain. If you write a word processor, you can pretty much
assume that anyone using a computer could be your market. So, if you are
thinking about a platform, your decision will be based on how many
people there are using a platform.
In contrast, CAD is a much smaller market. I'd guess that
_exceedingly_ few home users are doing CAD. I'm pretty sure that
absolutely none of them are going to be buying Unigraphics to do it.
As a high-end CAD/CAM/CAE vendor, we deal mostly with large businesses
and companies that do business with them. For example, GM uses
Unigraphics as their sole CAD system. Our calendar also has listed
Tupperware, Sunbeam, Baush & Lomb and Boeing.
The reason this matters is that we don't sell to a mass-market. We
put features in because we can find out pretty directly from our
market what people want. For example, if GM wanted to switch their
machines to Linux, we'd throw people on it immediately. But as far as
I know, we haven't heard any demand on it.
Now, Bentley sells to a wider market than we do, so it's more likely
that they'll find enough demand to port. (After all, I believe that a
single seat of UG can run up to US$25K with all the options... so most
customers who are worried about savin $5000 are already looking
somewhere else.) But the real way to get them to port is to convince
your CAD shop that Linux is a good thing and they need to bug their
vendor.
[Employed by but not speaking for Unigraphics Solutions.]
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
A beer delayed is a beer denied.
Jim Buchanan
Alan Shutko (a...@acm.org) wrote:
: and companies that do business with them. For example, GM uses
: Unigraphics as their sole CAD system. Our calendar also has listed
Wrong. I'm using Mentor Graphics and ISS (now Avant!) LTL-100. We do
use Unigraphics heavily, but it's far from exclusive.
: market what people want. For example, if GM wanted to switch their
: machines to Linux, we'd throw people on it immediately. But as far as
Actually, at a grass-roots level, we'd like to try it. Also, no one
has ever told me I couldn't get a demo version of a CAD system running
on a Linux machine and evaluate it. In fact I'm usually encouraged to
try and find better/newer/more efficient ways of doing things. However
none of the companies we are interested in have a Linux port, and will
not do one just so I can try it a while and recommend it. They want a
commitment first. And no one with the authority to back up our request
with money would be willing to do so until we determine that the
product will work out. Frankly I can't blame them either, despite my
faith in Linux itself, I'd want to see the actual application in use
for a while before I'd commit too.
It's an ugly chicken and egg problem, as has already been pointed out.
--
Jim Buchanan c22...@dawg.delcoelect.com jbuc...@iquest.net
================= http://members.iquest.net/~jbuchana =====================
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home."
-Ken Olson, President of DEC, World Future Society Convention, 1977
==================== http://hybiss.delcoelect.com =========================
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "J" == Jim Buchanan <c22...@dawg.delcoelect.com> writes:
J> Alan Shutko (a...@acm.org) wrote:
J> : and companies that do business with them. For example, GM uses
J> : Unigraphics as their sole CAD system. Our calendar also has listed
J> Wrong. I'm using Mentor Graphics and ISS (now Avant!) LTL-100. We do
J> use Unigraphics heavily, but it's far from exclusive.
Thanks for making me clarify things. Here's what I was meaning to
comment on (From http://www.unigraphics.com/news/gm.html)
WARREN, Mich., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- General Motors (NYSE: GM) has
adopted a new common, math-based design system through which it will
speed development of its next-generation vehicles. Unigraphics, a
division of Electronic Data Systems (EDS)(NYSE: EDS), developed the
software that will become GM's single, common core CAD/CAM system for
automotive product design.
I forgot that there is world outside of mechanical CAD/CAM. I've been
in my cube way too long!
J> Actually, at a grass-roots level, we'd like to try it.
Is there any way you could get people to put a little pressure on our
sales guys to get at least a trial system ported? I _know_ there are
programmers here who would love to be allowed to try a port, and GM
has enough pull here that they might be able to get something going.
(And it would get us on GCC... which would be a good thing. I have
_serious_ hatred of the HP compiler...)
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
Sleep? What's that?? MEGA message READer
Michael Hasenstein
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Robert Wuest wrote:
> Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com wrote:
> >
> > Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version of
> > MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to explain
> > why. Our products are designed specifically for professional users that work
> > on enterprise-scale engineering projects.
>
> [ Big Snip ]
>
> A self-fulfilling prophesy. By not having the Linux version available, engineers
> can't even consider it. Worse, those that might actually be in a position to buy
> or recommend the Linux version can't even get the academic version because they
> aren't students (I'm not, I tried and I can't).
>...(deleted)...
Right, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If I had to decide about what product to buy on what platform I would
certainly NOT choose a platform/product combination (or just a product)
that doesn't exist yet, first because it can take anywhere between the
promised amount of time (which is too long already) and infinity, and if
it comes out I'll be the first Beta tester. No, thank you, that way you
don't need to wait for lots of orders for a Linux port. Who would commit
himself to buying vaporware at some indefinite time in the future?
Which doesn't mean I don't understand your hesitation. It certainly is a
hard decision, especially when you have to invest considerable effort on a
100% port.
--
**************************************************************
Michael Hasenstein; Siemens Nixdorf (Consultant)
currently @Oracle, Redwood Shores, California
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/home/mha/
**************************************************************
Stefan Hundhammer
Stephen R. Savitzky wrote:
>
> Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com writes:
>
> > Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version
> > of MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to
> > significant business case to consider completing the port. [...] Should the
> > engineering community start adopting Linux as a viable solution for
> > engineering applications, then we are already well along that path.
>
> > FWIW, to date, we have heard of very little commitment that would support an
> > x86-Linux port that we would be happy to call ready for commercial use (after
> > all, we have set our standards for our own development efforts very high.) So
> > far, the total number of commitments that we have received for new commercial
> > licenses has been remarkably low (on the order of a couple dozen believe it or
> > not). This indicates that there is little commitment from the engineering
> > community regarding Linux.
>
> nobody's using Linux because the applications aren't there; the applications
> aren't there because nobody's using it.
>
> talking to the application developers in hopes that their "couple of dozen"
> requests will rise to whatever they think will be a profitable user base.
I totally agree to that. It worked nicely for us and for our customers.
We are making large scale document management and archiving systems.
We used to develop on Sun workstations only, but - guess what - we never got
the kind of hardware we would have wanted. All we have is one four-year-old (!)
Sun SPARC 10-50 and two Sun SPARC 5s. So we were really FORCED to use our
Pentium-166 PCs not only as NT-based X-Terminals. Out of sheer necessity we were
forced (thank god) to install Linux and start developing under Linux.
And it really worked out nicely. Most Linux libs and tools are not only far more
comfortable and powerful, but also revealed many SunOS and Solaris specifics we
had taken for granted to exist in any Unix system.
All of a sudden, many of us became able to telecommute, using their home PCs.
Imagine that: If you don't feel like driving to work, just give your boss a call
and work at home. You'd need a modem or ISDN in most cases, of course. But this
is one more factor of living quality Linux provided for us (of course, nobody
would have thought of buying a Sun of any kind for home usage...).
And our customers, many of them being university clinics, started to like the
Linux version, too. Naturally, this is easier in a university environment than
it is in the business world. But I am sure there is a market, too.
For example, the university clinics of Heidelberg and Aachen are using the Linux
version of our system to handle their conventional paper medical records. Very
successfully to date, too.
In the last months, we have been giving the Linux version an extra boost.
For example, there wasn't a good image viewer or even viewing tool kit around.
So we made the AccuSoft corporation port their great ImageGear tool kit to Linux
(their engineering cost for this was _very_ reasonable; I can only try to
encourage
other people to support companies porting tool kits and other stuff to Linux!).
And that Linux image viewer is faster than anything I've ever seen on the same
PC hardware - regardless of the system. It competes perfectly with Win95/NT
viewers
like PaintShop Pro and the like. And it's faster than on a brand new Sun Ultra
with Creator Graphics board - a customer's machine, not ours :-(
Based on ImageGear for Linux, we (I, that is) wrote a Motif widget to make image
handling really easy (see http://www.datech.heitec.de/HXm ). Using Linux, I was
able to do most of it at home. The Solaris port of that widget was as easy as
invoking GNU C on the Solaris machine. That's all there is to it.
Now we have nearly our complete system running under Linux, SunOS and Solaris
(and NT, but this is another sad, sad story...). Our personal favorite, however,
is - guess what - the Linux version. Everything running smoothly. On your own
PC.
No need to use a Sun over the network. Everything locally. Perfect.
Bottom line:
IF YOU ARE A DEVELOPER, TALK TO YOUR BOSS. CONVINCE HIM IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE
TO USE LINUX. Even if it's just for development - for starters. The customers
are going to come. It really works.
If you're not one of them NT freaks who would like to obliterate everything
except their beloved M$ system, that is.
If Unix has a future (and I bet it has), Linux is it.
--
Stefan Hundhammer (Stefan.H...@datech.heitec.de)
HEITEC Datentechnik GmbH * Schuhstr. 30 * 91009 Erlangen * Germany
Tel.: +49-9131/877-218 * Fax: +49-9131/877-222
Frank Miles
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.98032...@mhasenst-ncd.us.oracle.com>,
Michael Hasenstein <M.Hase...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Robert Wuest wrote:
>> Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com wrote:
>> > MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to explain
>> > why. Our products are designed specifically for professional users that work
>> > on enterprise-scale engineering projects.
>>
>>
>> A self-fulfilling prophesy. By not having the Linux version available, engineers
>> can't even consider it. Worse, those that might actually be in a position to buy
>> or recommend the Linux version can't even get the academic version because they
>> aren't students (I'm not, I tried and I can't).
>>...(deleted)...
There's a problem even for the 'educational' version -- it is totally
lacking in any support, even though the cost/seat is the same for the
Win95 version. This probably reflects the same difficult trade-offs
as for a commercial offering, but it certainly played a significant part
in our upgrading our AutoCAD to r14 rather than going to Microstation.
-frank
Richard Knechtel
Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> >>>>> "J" == Jim Buchanan <c22...@dawg.delcoelect.com> writes:
>
> J> Alan Shutko (a...@acm.org) wrote:
> J> : and companies that do business with them. For example, GM uses
> J> : Unigraphics as their sole CAD system. Our calendar also has listed
>
> J> Wrong. I'm using Mentor Graphics and ISS (now Avant!) LTL-100. We do
> J> use Unigraphics heavily, but it's far from exclusive.
>
> Thanks for making me clarify things. Here's what I was meaning to
> comment on (From http://www.unigraphics.com/news/gm.html)
>
> WARREN, Mich., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- General Motors (NYSE: GM) has
> adopted a new common, math-based design system through which it will
> speed development of its next-generation vehicles. Unigraphics, a
> division of Electronic Data Systems (EDS)(NYSE: EDS), developed the
> software that will become GM's single, common core CAD/CAM system for
> automotive product design.
>
> I forgot that there is world outside of mechanical CAD/CAM. I've been
> in my cube way too long!
Yes, EDS has developed many different applications for GM. EDS also does
lots with Video production as well. We have a whole unit devoted to it.
--
Richard Knechtel
EDS
(Systems Engineer/System Administrator)
(Aspiring AS/400 GURU)
(Aspiring Linux GURU)
(Aspiring VB Programmer)
The contents of this message express only MY opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, EDS. All responsibility for the statements
made in this posting resides solely and completely with the
ME.
I Ex-Spaminate spammers!
See US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C)
and Sec.227(b)(3)(C).
Richard Knechtel
Stephen R. Savitzky wrote:
>
> This is a common, unfortunate instance of the chicken-and-egg phenomenon:
> nobody's using Linux because the applications aren't there; the applications
> aren't there because nobody's using it.
>
> Most of us in the user community can't do very much about it, except to keep
> talking to the application developers in hopes that their "couple of dozen"
> requests will rise to whatever they think will be a profitable user base.
>
> BUT: _some_ of us can do something better. If we work for a _big_ company,
> and especially one that is already using the product on dozens or hundreds of
> Windows boxen or Sun workstations, we can persuade our CIO, VP of engineering,
> or whatever that it would save $5000/seat or so to run the same application
> under Linux. It's pretty easy to make this argument, especially when you
> factor in the cost of the hardware, the software (e.g. NT Workstation), and
> the support (how many reboots per week?).
>
> Then you're ready to go to your application vendor and say ``We really like
> your product, and we're ready to place an order for 100 more seats IF you can
> provide it on Linux. Otherwise we'll go to someone who can...''
>
> I don't want to place the entire burden on the users, though. If you're
> working for a company that sells an application, especially a big, expensive
> application, push the ``if we build it, they will come'' philosophy. Point
> out the marketing opportunity: a customer can buy the same product at the same
> price and save thousands of dollars per year by running it under Linux. Point
> out the fact that a customer running Linux will save _your_ company hundreds
> of dollars per year in support calls they won't have to make (no DLL
> conflicts; no mysterious crashes when they try to run some other program at
> the same time; no disaster when they upgrade to NT5.0 or Windows 98).
I and a couple others in my company have made many suggestions to this
point. the only problem you run into is like in our case our company is
now a M$ solution provider and EVEYTHING we do is with M$ products and
we push M$ solutions. Which to me makes bad business sense to push one
particular service. Everyone knows M$ products aree a major hassel cost
lots of money, lack security, and are just plain junk! But, the fact of
the matter is it's the gods upstairs in the big offices that say "we
want this." becuase they are BS'ed about the whole thing. We now push NT
based solutions (bad move), when I many here won't want to hear it but
the AS/400 is a MUCH better solution for a business server. yes, I love
linux but the comercial software isn't there and businesses won't buy
into that. I run linux at home as well as win 95 and win 3.1. But win 95
is the biggest piece of Crap is have ever seen. Give me a Commodore
Amiga any day! And the trouble I have had with Windows for workgroups at
work is a nightmare. I don't know how many times I have threated to
install linux on my pc at work. But, the help desk people won't support
it. (probably because they are winblows flunkies and don't know unix).
The best thing to do is if a list was created of the types of commercial
applications people would like to see, then start a MASS request
campaign to the comercial software houses to port their product to
Linux. Right now Linux IS the only competitor to Winblows. IBM shut down
ALL OS/2 development, Support etc.. so what's left???? Linux and MAC.
but MAC isn't PC.
Also, people should take every chance they get to "pitch" the advantages
and cost savings of using linux of M$ to their companies. The more
people that do this the better chance a company here and there might
take a serious look at it. I know that in some of the bigger companies
there is a good number of linux users. if those people got together and
pushed it they might make a difference. I and a few others are trying
this in my company (were probably taking to a wall but, if we don't do
anything about it then we have no reason to bitch). It's like if you
don't vote you don't have a right to bitch about how bad the government
is doing.(U.S. that is).
Marten Feldtmann
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> writes:
>>>>>> "S" == Stephen R Savitzky <st...@central.starport.com> writes:
>S> This is a common, unfortunate instance of the chicken-and-egg
>S> phenomenon: nobody's using Linux because the applications aren't
>S> there; the applications aren't there because nobody's using it.
>It's definately an interesting thing in the CAD market. Microstation
>is sold to a much different market than Unigraphics, but I'll bet that
>their potential market is still small enough that they can't afford to
>go off and do things assuming people will come.
A german software house, bocad software GmbH, will make a CAD-based product
for Linux especially suited for the steel-and-wood-building (do not know
the correct english word for this) CAD market. It's a high-end, expensive
Software for high-end architects - actually not a software for the private
person.
The reason they begin to port their application to Linux was the call of
The users to have a Unix-based solution under Intel-based architecture. Some
users were not very happy with the new NT-version, because lot's of these
Unix users have had lots of Unix experiences, scripts and they do not want
do loose these things.
Our company also considers to enter the Linux-based market (using RDBMS
like Adabas-D and Smalltalk/X for the application), but this market is
quite different and we do not have the tools - as under Windows - to produce
good products in a fast way we would like to do.
Marten
Maurizio Ferrari
In message <6f5slq$oa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com wrote:
> In article <350EE398...@nilenet.com>,
> Ben Bergen <b...@nilenet.com> wrote:
>
> > If you have any interest in microstation call or write to bentley and
> > maybe they will start to aknowledge linux as a real OS. I have used the
> > academic version and there really isn't any difference from the SGI
> > "professional" version except that bentley refuses to release it.
>
> Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version of
> MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to explain
> why.
[snip]
> Thank you.
>
> Phil Chouinard [www.Bentley.com]
>
> PS - If there is anything in this response that you would like further
> clarification on, please feel free to identify it and we shall see what we can
> do to help out.
Phil, thanks for your highly detailed and informative posting.
I agree with what you say, but I would like to point out something,
that might be interesting and start a debate.
I run a 2 men band electronics design bureau. We started in September
and our business prospective seem interesting for the future (we really
hope so :-)), and we might start hiring more people.
We decided not to rely on Windows where possible for
our computing - we run mostly Linux, resorting to Windows when needed.
Currently, we need a simple but 3D mechanical CAD package, for a small job.
Honestly, there is no need for a full Microstation licence, but we
would also like to use Linux for this as well.
This puts us in a difficult position: if we wanted to use Microstation,
being it not supported under Linux, surely we are not prepared to
pay the full price (and I understand Bentley would not want to sell it as
well, for exactly tha same reason). However, we are not entitled to use the
Academic version, (OK, I might be , but it would be used in a commercial
environment thus breaking the contract) for which we would be happy to pay
the price and forget the support. It would be the perfect package for the
small (nothing more really than drawing a simple box) job.
However, us using Microstation would surely have an important side effect
for you: there would be a future customer 'hooked'. If, as we hope, we
will grow up and need a fukl Microstation licence, that would be
one more engineering company asking you for a full Linux version
willing to puy all the money needed for the support.
In other words, would it not be a good idea to sell the Academic,
unsupported version to anybody with a large *unsupported product -
do not bother asking us any questions* disclaimer?
I don't see negative side effect for Bentley, once you sell smtg
that installs well in the current configuration: it surely will
start spreading Microstation in the Linux world, building a large user base,
ready for the time when more engineers will turn to Linux.
If Linux will become a widely spread system between engineers, you will
be in a dominant position, otherwise, you will have lost nothing, I think.
What do you think?
Thanks for yor attention
(cc-ed to my Bentley Italy contact, Mr. Giovanni Volpi.
I apologize to cc. this to you as well, but I do not trust my news provider
too much)
Richard Steiner
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Richard Knechtel <dedsec01...@eds.com>
spake unto us, saying:
>IBM shut down ALL OS/2 development, Support etc.. so what's left????
>Linux and MAC. but MAC isn't PC.
Just a clarification -- IBM has *not* shut down OS/2 development. It's
being targetted at operations larger than 300 seats, but development is
most certainly still occurring (we just saw another new FixPak in the
past several weeks).
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Richard Knechtel
Richard Steiner wrote:
>
> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Richard Knechtel <dedsec01...@eds.com>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >Linux and MAC. but MAC isn't PC.
>
> being targetted at operations larger than 300 seats, but development is
> most certainly still occurring (we just saw another new FixPak in the
> past several weeks).
>
>
Well, I know fro sure they shut down their support support center. as We
have a call center application that ran on OS/2 and we are switching to
the WIN NT version because of OS/2's "Death". No customer wants an OS/2
server and workstations for an OS that is no longer supported. As well I
had a gentleman from my Networking class that works at IBM in
Boulder,Co. and he told me that IBM was letting OS/2 basically "Die". He
told me V4 was it.
Steven Castillo
Richard Knechtel <dedsec01...@eds.com> writes:
> Alan Shutko wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "J" == Jim Buchanan <c22...@dawg.delcoelect.com> writes:
> >
> > J> Alan Shutko (a...@acm.org) wrote:
> > J> : and companies that do business with them. For example, GM uses
> > J> : Unigraphics as their sole CAD system. Our calendar also has listed
> >
> > J> Wrong. I'm using Mentor Graphics and ISS (now Avant!) LTL-100. We do
> > J> use Unigraphics heavily, but it's far from exclusive.
> >
> > Thanks for making me clarify things. Here's what I was meaning to
> > comment on (From http://www.unigraphics.com/news/gm.html)
> >
> > WARREN, Mich., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- General Motors (NYSE: GM) has
> > adopted a new common, math-based design system through which it will
> > speed development of its next-generation vehicles. Unigraphics, a
> > division of Electronic Data Systems (EDS)(NYSE: EDS), developed the
> > software that will become GM's single, common core CAD/CAM system for
> > automotive product design.
> >
> > I forgot that there is world outside of mechanical CAD/CAM. I've been
> > in my cube way too long!
> Sleep? What's that?? MEGA message READer
>
>
> Yes, EDS has developed many different applications for GM. EDS also does
> lots with Video production as well. We have a whole unit devoted to it.
>
> --
>
> Richard Knechtel
Having worked in computational physics and numerical modeling for a
number of years, I can tell you that the biggest hole in the range of
available software for linux is in highend visualization (except for
IDL) and highend engineering CAD. While Microstation is ok for lowend
CAD, to do
high end modeling, a CAD environment must have a sophisticated geometrical
package as well as a discretization component (finite elements).
Some examples are IDEAS and PATRAN. High end geometry only
packages used in places like Boeing and GM include Unigraphics and
Pro-E. I truly believe that Linux with a high-end graphics board
would be ideal for these packages. However, the various CAD-CAM
companies have still not made any commitments. I just exchanged email
with a person at IBM who is involved in the development of
techexplorer - a high end visualization package. They are releasing
it for the usual windows and unix platforms, but not Linux! He
replied to me that they had concerns about releasing proprietary
software under the GNU copyleft agreement. I replied that
techexplorer could be sold for linux just as it can for hp-ux or aix.
I gave him examples of Maple V, Matlab, and Wordperfect - all of which
we have purchase here. Even if we have to purchase the software, the
bang for the buck of running the commercial packages on an open Intel or
Alpha Linux platform is impossible to beat. I hate having to continue
purchasing proprietary unix workstations to support IDEAS and PATRAN
(which we use heavily).
Just my .02 cents worth.
Steve Castillo
Electromagnetics Laboratory
New Mexico State University
Phillip Rulon
In article <6f5slq$oa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Phil.Ch...@Bentley.com writes:
> Ben: Although it is true that we do not currently have a commercial version of
> MicroStation for Linux, even for demonstration purposes, I'd like to explain
> why.
[ explanation clipped...]
OK, I have several points so I'll split them up:
1) The chicken and egg problem is real. VP of Engineering is not going to
spend $200K on 50-75 Linux seats and then wait for you to port your
code for him. Knowing that your port is done, or in beta changes the
picture dramaticly.
2) You have a credible "beta" in the academic sector, what does tell you
about the youngsters who are, right now, learning how to use your product
in a Linux environment. Soon these kids will get jobs in the commercial
sector and begin making choices about which tools to use. If I were one
of them, I would go with something I know.
3) Linux is already in the enterprise, it has a commanding lead in the
communications sector. Bill Gates has publicly admitted that Apache
gives him nightmares. This is because the software is there. It talks
appletalk to the Apples, SMB to Windows, NFS to the Suns, X25, FDDI,
PPP, PLIP, SLIP, Ham Radio and on and on... The point being, if you
build it, they will come. For God's sake look at the Web server/ISP
market.
4) uptime... still light-years ahead.
5) You're in a competitive business, what are you going to do if Baystate or
somebody releases and it turns out to be a hit? All those college kids
you supported are going to defect.
Microsoft has spent tens of millions of dollars to discredit UNIX and it's
cousins in an effort to convince the public that it's a dying operating system.
In such an environment Linux/FreeBSD installations have grown to more than
10 million and are still growing at 30% per year. Linux is here to
stay, it's time to start porting your programs to it.
Phil
Phillip L. Kazakoff
I guess it's true about IBM forsaking OS/2 - my previous job I had with
an IBM subsidiary and we initially did a lot of OS/2 system development
for IBM (mostly NLS and localization) for all versions up to the Merlin
release. After Merlin though we had to practically disband the OS/2 dev
team - there seems to be no more releases coming, only maintenace and
fixpacks...
Best Regards,
Phillip L. Kazakoff
Systems administrator
IOM (International Organization for Migration) Bonn
Koblenzer str. 99, 53177 Bonn, Germany
tel: +49-228-8209472
e-mail: kaza...@iom.int
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them.
Isaac Asimov
-------------------------------------------------------------------