Autodesk Embracing Open Source

Seba writes to tell us that Autodesk appears to be embracing open source with the recent donation of their web mapping technology to the open source community. From the article: "A snapshot of the MapServer Enterprise source code is available today through the new MapServer Foundation, an independent non- profit organization with the mission of supporting and promoting open source web mapping. The foundation's charter members include MapServer Technical Steering Committee members, the University of Minnesota MapServer Project, the DM Solutions Group, and Autodesk."

Comments

Autocad

[dduardo]

Great, so when are we going to see a native Linux port of Autocad?

Re:Autocad

[Metteyya]

It is damn sad that parent has been moderated "Funny".

Re:Autocad

[Anonymous Coward]

never

Re:Autocad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that there is so much empty repetitive discussion about comment moderation..

Re:Autocad

[ZoTo]

Not until they can get out of their API agreement with Micro$oft which stipulates that that AutoCAD must not be ported to any OS other than Micro$oft and even then, must be a currently supported OS (no DOS, Win9x, etc). Prior to this agreement, AutoCAD was ported to Mac and Sun as well as the DOS/Win3.x platform.

Re:Autocad

[ZorinLynx]

Any particular reason they got into this agreement with MS? Seems strange to artificially limit your market like that....

-Z

Re:Autocad

[Anonymous Coward]

See it's because ever since taco decided insightful posts should get karma, moderators will mod a post like this funny so that the poster gets uhh AHHH POST FAILING ABORT ABORRRT

Re:Autocad

[shione]

Proof that such an agreement exists please. (an online article would suffice). Autocad is the only program thats keeping me on XP and I would be peeved that they're not allowed t port it over to other OSes. I remember prior to r12 Autocad came with a dozen or so different exes.

Re:Autocad

[lababidi]

Wouldn't this violate some type of anti-trust law? I'm confused on how msft can require a software developer to lock in their product to one and only one OS. Could I sue for such behavior?

Re:Autocad

[WindBourne]

Hummmmm. That makes no sense. While there are a number of specialized cad packages that are used in various industries (Mentor Graphics, Catia, etc), they have held more than 50% of the general cad market, and I would bet more than 75% of MS market, for a long time.

Why would Autocad sign an agreement like that? In addition, why would MS sign it? These days, MS avoids anything on paper or e-mail (MS: we lost all of our backups of those e-mails that concerned this case; Judge, you know that we get virus just like you. ). And had they signed an agreement prior to the monopoly trial, it would have been used as evidence against them.

Re:Autocad

[molnarcs]

Mod parent funny pls.

Re:Autocad

[shibashaba]

I remember someone quoted a while back from autocad saying that they would only do that if linux had already attained around 30-40% marketshare of corporate desktops. So probably not for a very long time.

Re:Autocad

[olafura]

I think the offical reply is when enough customers what it on it, I think if you want CAD solution of linux you should sponser something like brl-cad, it has potential but is far of having the same features as autocad.

Re:Autocad

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Mr.

[..]
We are not planning to support any other operating system.
[..]
yours sincerely...

the essence of the 4-sentence answer i got this time to my all-year mail to autodesk about autocad on linux / bsd.
... the responses get shorter every year... hmm... let's see what they'll answer next year.

Re:Autocad

[eihab]

Shouldn't that apply to game consoles as well?

Didn't the "beloved" Sony sign an agreement with RockStar to keep GTA San Andreas on the PlayStation 2 platform for a period of time?

Oh, I forgot how slashdot works, When a company is beloved here they're cheered for blindly and all is forgiven...

Re:Autocad

[similar to mh2]

If by "cheered for blindly" you mean "lambasted by anti-Sony articles for a straight week after the rootkit debacle", then yes, you're quite right.

Ignoring the whole "slashdot is one person!" fallacy, has it EVER been popular opinion here to like Sony? I don't know, maybe a good while ago, but as far as I can remember their cartel arm has always been hated, and that arm's been twisting the electronics arm resulting in DRM-laden products, and their products have mostly been shoddy anyway.

Oh, and I despise the Playstation, and the Xbox. Don't like the Gamecube much, though the Revolution looks rather promising. So I took your comment as a personal affront, which I shouldn't have, since it's just a troll.

Re:Autocad

[Jonny_eh]

I'd settle for a Linux port of the license manager, so I can use the office linux server, instead of an unreliable windows workstation, to serve licenses.

There's a linux port of the 3rd party software they use as a license server, but it doesn't work with autoCAD.

Re:Autocad

[jbengt]

I don't know for sure any details about a deal, but there is the appearance of a quid pro quo. Apparently at the time Microsoft bought Visio, Visio owned Intellicad (basically an AutoCAD clone), a product directly competing with Autodesk. Visio promptly spun off the product and Microsoft did not compete with Autodesk.

http://cadence.advanstar.com/newsletter/aec/1201_2 .html

Re:Autocad

[UnanimousCoward]

Not until the it makes sense in the marketplace.

Autodesk's decision to focus on the Windows platform for AutoCAD was perhaps the smartest decision the company made from a business standpoint. Just put all the plusses and minuses for single versus multi-platform support (make sure you make that single platform Windows) for a product like AutoCAD and, in hindsight, it's a no-brainer.

Re:Autocad

[eihab]

Nope, the general sentiment around here is pro Sony and anti Microsoft when it comes to game consoles. You may wanna search slashdot for the articles/discussions regarding the arrival of XboX360 and dig through the comments, you'll see tons of "I'm waiting for PS3!!!one1!!1".

I couldn't care less about any gaming console, I don't own any and I don't plan on buying any. The whole GTA San Andreas thing came up because I was expecting RockStar to have a PC version when they released it.

I try my best to not stereotype people based on anything, but the general sentiment around here is really obvious among the majority of posts.

Anyway, hope this cleared things up. Please don't take anything I said here personally, I just had a long day and I'm pretty tired.

Re:Autocad

[kubrick]

I must have missed the antitrust lawsuits aimed at stopping Sony's illegal exploitation of its monopoly status in the game console market.

Oh, that's right. There weren't any. Unlike Microsoft and personal computers.

Re:Autocad

[RamblerRandy]

When they hire me! Bwa, ha, ha, ha... (I live 1.5 mi. from them) Please ignore my SIG line, I'm running Windows and it won't let me edit it... (it's a joke stupid...)

Re:Autocad

[aichpvee]

Maybe that's because Sony has a successful console with dozens, if not hundreds, of great games and microsoft has a failed console with 2 good games. And no, neither of them are halo.

I don't think you'll see much pro-Sony sentiment around here if they blow it in the next generation and don't have a huge lead in the number of quality titles available exclusively for their platform.

Re:Autocad

[FukYa]

These crazy bastards ought to realize that porting Autocad to Linux could greatly help to sell the Autocad product. There are MANY large networks out there running ten's and hundred's of strictly Autocad stations tied to central file servers. Enabling a company to convert such networks to Linux based ones would save that company tens of thousands of dollars in software licensing and down time due to infected/broken Windows boxes. These fools at Autodesk KNOW this but simply refuse to make the port.

Re:Autocad

[eihab]

Dude, I have mod points and I would mod you +10 Awesome point, but I can't :/ Thanks for realizing what I was trying to say :)

Re:Autocad

[eihab]

Man, I didn't say either of the consoles are halo, please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't care about either console because I simply don't have the time to play games anymore. I'm married and I'm expecting a child next July. I work 2 jobs and I'm looking for a third job right now. enough said..

Cheering for or against Sony because of their games and not their tactics sounds great, but is Microsoft treated the same here?
No matter how good Microsoft's products are they're ridiculed here (although some comments surface through the moderation).

My point is, if you're gonna point fingers around and say "bad company", then do it fairly and don't be a hypocrite.

My post isn't directed at you, you just ignited this point :)

Thank for replying and hope you're having a wonderful night/day.

Re:Autocad

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one.

(Mods, please don't label me redundant...),

Re:Autocad

[somersault]

"No matter how good Microsoft's products are" the only Microsoft program I've ever really enjoyed using is Visual C++ 6 I think.. having been brought up with Macs and Amigas till around 7 years ago then I know for sure that Windows is not 'good', it is simply the norm. It is getting better in some ways, but it still is very limiting. I also agree with the games thing between PlayStation/X-Box is about the games, though I do have a general anti-Microsoft sentiment, and if both consoles had exactly the same games I'd still buy a Playstation, because I like the controller better, and know the X-Box is just a (de?)glorified PC. The 360 seems to have more interesting hardware, but I've not looked into the next generation of consoles, and will probably get a PlayStation 3 to play all the old PSX games I have (we have a PS2 at the family home, I've got at my own place). Also for some reason I like the Nintendo DS better than the PSP even though I like playstations - maybe if both were brought out at the same time I would have gone PSP, but I like the touchscreen possibilities (works well for playing 1st person shooters, which are my favourite genre). But enough rambling. Any anti Microsoft sentiment here has infinite justification, and it's gonna be hard to an infinite amount of positive things to say about them. I think Windows will always be viewed as the most insidious virus of all v.v

Re:Autocad

[hostyle]

Mod parent away please

A little too late?

[garcia]

Is this perhaps in response to GMaps being so widely used by various web applications out there? It seems like everyone these days is using GMaps integration (Dodgeball (duh), crime statistics (as seen on Slashdot), frappr, etc).

I don't have access to anything done by AutoDesk, but is it as viable a platform as GMaps?

Re:A little too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

However there are restrictions as to how you can use Google Maps API. If this can do the same thing and run on your own server, it looks like it maybe a Mappoint Web Killer. Why pay for the service if you can run your own? The question then becomes can you easily integrate a geocoder (preferably a free one).

Re:A little too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go and get the code at:

http://www.mapserverfoundation.org/

Re:A little too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this perhaps in response to GMaps being so widely used by various web applications out there? It seems like everyone these days is using GMaps integration (Dodgeball (duh), crime statistics (as seen on Slashdot), frappr, etc).

I don't have access to anything done by AutoDesk, but is it as viable a platform as GMaps?

I think the real question is how many times do you have to use the term 'GMaps' in one post before others start using it? And another valid question, is it really that difficult to type Google Maps?

Re:A little too late?

[Bj�rn]

Interestingly I just heard about the MapServer Project yesterday. The person talking about it was very enthusiastic. More info can be found here. A snippet:

MapServer is an OpenSource development environment for constructing spatially enabled Internet-web applications. The software builds upon other popular OpenSource or freeware systems including Shapelib, FreeType, Proj.4, GDAL/OGR. MapServer will run where most commercial systems won't or can't, on Linux/Apache platforms. MapServer is known to compile on most versions of UNIX/Linux, Microsoft Windows and even MacOS.

Re:A little too late?

[pagameba]

This is actually completely different. Google Maps is a javascript API that allows you to integrate maps into your web-based apps. Its very cool. But you don't control the server side of this, the data it uses, nor can you change the source of the app. ADSK's software is full set of both server and client side code that you can use and deploy without restriction (okay, with restrictions of the LGPL) and use for whatever purpose (commercial, personal etc). Google has legal restrictions on the use of their API.

Re:A little too late?

[2short]

"...but is [MapGuide] as viable a platform as GMaps?"

Is Picassa as viable as Photoshop? I'm not saying Picassa or GMaps are bad, because they are both quite good; but they're just not targeting the same functionality level as Photoshop or MapGuide.

Google Maps is cool, but it has a long way to go before it is a MapGuide competitor. GM is certainly superior if you want to do something quick and easy, but if you want to run the server, control all the data shown on the map and the presentation, tie it into your databases, Google maps isn't what you want. MapGuide is.
    That said, I'm sure GMaps and MS MapPoint have something to do with this decision. They are taking over (and expanding) the low end of web based mapping, leaving MapGuide with the high end (which was previously all there was). Autodesk can see that eventually Google Maps etc. will grow in capability and begin to threaten it. Now people who are pushing what GMaps can do, or want to go a little beyond it can use MapGuide, and still not have to pay.
    Note that ADesk is not giving away MapGuide Author. You don't really need it to use the rest, or to do simple stuff. But it is pretty nice, and those of us doing really high end web mapping will still pay for it.

    Basically, this move tells me someone at ADesk is smarter than I thought. They are opening up stuff that has free competitors while those free competitors are still way behind. Makes sense. If people are going to use something free, it's still better to have them use yours.

Re:A little too late?

[MBCook]

I feel like nitpicking today.

MapServer is known to compile on most versions of UNIX/Linux, Microsoft Windows and even MacOS.

Shouldn't that read:

MapServer is known to compile on most versions of UNIX/Linux, MacOS and even Microsoft Windows.?

After all, MacOS is UNIX. Of the three platforms listed, Windows is the odd man out due to lack of being derived from (or a version of) UNIX.

Re:A little too late?

[imidan]

The big deal about web mapping services for GIS shops is whether or not they work with the back end systems. In my state, more than 90% of the state, county, and local GIS departments run on ESRI software for their actual data services, so for them, putting data on the web with ESRI's ARCIMS web software is an easy way to go. Unfortunately, ESRI software is massively expensive. Fortunately, you can buy it in modules, so the web service is seperate from the database. Government agencies at all levels could probably benefit from open source web mapping tools, as long as those tools are compatible with the back end. Another very popular open source GIS web application is UMN's MapServer.

Re:A little too late?

[2short]

This is somewhat confusing, because the web-based mapping world can only come up with one and a half product names:

    "MapServer" is an excellent open-source web-based mapping app, which before today would have been considered the big threat to MapGuide.
    "MapGuide" is (was) AutoDesks web-based mapping system, one part of which is called "MapGuide Server". Much of this system was just open sourced.
    The "MapServer Foundation" has been established by Autodesk, the MapServer team, and some others, to encourage and manage development of both MapServer and "MapServer Enterprise", the latter being the project previously known as MapGuide.

Re:A little too late?

[Bj�rn]

Thanks for making that clear.

Probably a clever move by AutoDesk though. This way they may be able to keep some control of a market that MapServer might have taken a large part of.

Re:A little too late?

[aichpvee]

But GMaps fits so much better with their other products, GMail, GSearch, GBase, GReader, etc...

Re:A little too late?

[2short]

"The big deal about web mapping services for GIS shops is whether or not they work with the back end systems"

Frankly, this is ESRI marketing. Every serious GIS app there is handles each others formats fine. Certainly they all handle ESRI SHP files, because as you say, ESRI is the leader, particularly in government. I personally use ESRI file formats all day, but almost never ESRI software. MapInfo is better on the desktop, and MapGuide is better on the web. (which is really saying something, as both are, in some sense, kludgey piles of doo-doo)
    ESRI software is, as you say, massively expensive, and it's also not something I would ever describe as an "easy way to go". Autodesk MapGuide had been a somewhat expensive, (IMO) slightly better competitor, which still was making only a small dent in ESRIs position.
  Along comes the open source MapServer, which is oboviously not expensive, is quite good, and getting better. To whatever extent this looks like a problem for #1 ESRI (and it looks like a significant one), it has to look like an even bigger problem for #2 AutoDesk. So someone at AutoDesk had a good idea. They gave their code to MapServer, and started a foundation to support it with a seat for them on the board. So now MapServer can take the fight to ESRI, and is in an even better position to do so. And if it works, and their now open code base takes over the market, what do you know, Autodesk held back a few nice tools (MapGuide Author) they can still sell.

Re:A little too late?

[imidan]

We're in the process of making a lot of changes to the way that we distribute GIS data on the web, and are considering some of the open source stuff (in part because, as you say, ESRI is never "easy"). I agree with you that a lot of the worry about data compatibility is ESRI FUD trying to keep you spending the tens of thousands of dollars that their software costs. It'll be interesting to see what develops on the web--what does it mean when anybody can set up these web services, and not just government agencies with vastly deep pockets?

yet another vendor tries to create an "open format

[rawwa.venoise]

Sure nice thing. Does this support data in open formats or does it run only in Autodesk format?
As long as the foundation in charge does not allow new trully open formats we can't consider this a trully open source project

Cool

[rbanffy]

No need to bash them or to compare their offer with gmaps... If it it good enough, it will stand on its own merits. If it is not, it will still depend on developer effort paid by Autodesk.

Anyway, the more people benefit from this, the better for all of us.

Re:Cool

[garcia]

No need to bash them or to compare their offer with gmaps...

There has to be a standard to compare them with, no? I checked out some of the University of Minnesota's offerings using this tech. I don't know it they are pushing the limits but I'm certainly unimpressed compared to what people have been able to do using GMaps.

To just shrug it off and say it doesn't need to be compared seems shortsighted to me.

Re:Cool

[Davorama]

Most of the good stuff is not showcased for some odd reason.

If you want to compare to google start with ka-map at http://ka-map.maptools.org/ but that's not the only interesting things going on.

And realize that with these tools you get to render your own layers, not just lay data over google's background (maybe I'm not totally up on what all you can do with google's API though). Google has changed the web based GIS quite a bit but before them, mapserver was the best FOSS way to do it by far and it's still the way to do stuff where you need real control.

Re:Cool

[2short]

No offense, but you don't know squat about MapGuide. I some circles, people have been comparing GMaps against the standard (MapGuide) ever since GMaps came out. The result of this comparison is that GMaps is fast, easy to set up and integrate with, and looks awesome. It's just too bad can't run the server yourself, and you have essentially no control over the map compared to MapGuide.

Google Maps is to MapGuide is to MapServer as Picassa is to Photoshop is to the GIMP. Except today, what Autodesk did is like if the Photoshop source code was donated to the GIMP team. The high-end web based mapping world is on it's head, and waiting to see how it all turns out. But Google Maps isn't worth talking about in this context (yet).

Re:Cool

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Flamebait
    50% Interesting

Who knew a legion of Autodesk TrollMods lurked on Slashdot? How could such a mild disagreement, merely citing disappointing personal experience with relevant details, could provoke them? I smell astroturf.

Maya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I can be signifigantly less worried about the future of Maya after Autodesk's purchase of Alias?
http://www.alias.com/glb/eng/press/press_release_d etails.jsp?itemId=3600004

Re:Maya?

[eMartin]

Autodesk has a whole lot of different products in different markets with different types of customers. The ways in they handle each of those products are pretty diverse.

That means no, this will have little effect on how they deal with Maya, but it also means that you shouldn't make assumptions about how they will deal with Maya.

Don't worry too much about it.

*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that AutoCAD uses spam for 'marketing' (One of the FreeBSD lists was spamed by their 'email campaign').

Besides Weber Systems gives away thier product and it works on various Linux versions and FreeBSD.

Title is completely wrong

[digitect]

The chances of AutoDesk embracing open source or anything like it is about as likely as their chief business cooperative, Microsoft.

Everyone who is familiar with AutoCAD knows that AutoDesk is quick to embed any latest Microsoft technology and does everything in their power to de-stabilize their existing user base. Between file version issues and various Desktop modules, AutoCAD has become a house of cards that can now be replaced only by their recent Revit purchase. (Of course, before the purchase, they promised the user base that Desktop was the future--pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.) The entire product line has become an upgrade train, and since all their mid-range competitors have been squashed, no one can get off.

This is quite sad because AutoCAD used to work on Unix. Much of the infrastructure still exists. (The archaic double-backslash or single forward slash path separators, for example.) Fortunately, the situation is so bad that there are many competing efforts to topple them. It will take some time, but an Open Source alternative could be derived from an emulator solution (IntelliCAD), a ground-up project (PythonCAD), a "ported" Apple solution, or an existing mature product (Cycas).

But I am certain the title of this article is completely upside-down.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

its the article that should be read, not the title ;)

Re:Title is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Additionaly From the article... Should be from the press release.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree.

It's really sad that Autodesk has gone from a stereotypical underdog -- a dozen guys in a garage struggling against the odds to make a CAD program that would work on an ordinary desktop PC -- to a cash-grabbing, customer-raping near-monopoly that would make even Microsoft blush with some of their underhanded sales tactics.

Like this year's kick in their customers' teeth: "Buy Inventor, even if you're not ready for 3D yet, because we're giving it away really cheap as we retire AutoCAD 2002." Then, less than a month after the end of that promotion: "Inventor is now a subscription-only package. If you ever want an upgrade, you'll have to pay backdated subscription fees to the date when you purchased the Inventor package... and guess what? Because you bought AutoCAD 2006 as part of the Inventor package, you can never upgrade AutoCAD again without paying the exorbitant Inventor subscription fees."

True story. They sucked their customers in, then they rammed them right up the Hershey Highway. An open source alternative cannot come too soon.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[ArwynH]

Erm...no. The title fits the article.

Sure, Autodesk haven't been completely friendly with OSS in the past. I seem to remember that their mapping software didn't work well with Firefox... But TFA states that it has just been OSed, so maybe that bug will be fixed. And a company that OSs stuff must have embraced Open Source to some degree or other. That doesn't mean the are about to open source AutoCAD yet though...

On a side note Microsoft has also embraced Open source to a limited degree and has released a few thing under OS licenses, they just also happen to be running a dirty marketing campaign agianst thier main competitiors aswell. They might spread FUD and try to confuse consumers with marketing speach, but don't make the mistake of thinking their R&D departments are run by fools.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[Brigadier]

I agree with you. I've been using autodesk ever since version ten. I remember with the advent of softdesk (the precurser to architectural desktop) it was to be the perfect parametric cad program. Since then thay've lost unix and mac support. Not to mention iexplorer is required for install. Now with revit they have two upgrade paths that technically are not compatible but are both required. This company has no direction every upgrade cycle since 12 has been an adventure for CAD managers.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[optimus2861]

"It will take some time, but an Open Source alternative could be derived"

I wish you were right, but I just don't see how. I don't believe the intersection of AutoCAD power users (primarily engineers and architects) and Open Source coders capable of writing an AutoCAD-like application (top-notch developers) is anywhere near large enough to take this on. There is virtually no "home user" base for AutoCAD, and developers who aren't also power users are going to have little appreciation for the kinds of things that an AutoCAD replacement would have to do. This isn't something you can hack together in a few months and start getting those engineers & architects switching to. It's got to be top-notch, polished, have all the needed features right away, and near-flawless cross-compatibility before any of the pros will even give it a look. And if you don't have the pros, you don't have anybody.

As an engineer who does some AutoCAD work, I have to say I really think Autodesk's domination in the CAD field is even more than Microsoft's in either operating systems or office suites.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[digitect]

You are correct in that fully capable software is a long time off, but there has to be some short cut to a basic CAD for Linux. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but surely the market will soon support solutions derived from an existing renderer (Blender), 2D CAD (QCAD), existing 3D (Cycas, arcad, ICAADS, OpenCascade) or a CAD/CAM (VariCAD) before AutoDesk can turn their ship around. It doesn't even have to be OS/FS, although I would think a FS system could eventually take the market.

Re:Title is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

People should take a look at something called OpenDGN. Microstation opened up their drawing format a year or two ago and have been working on keeping up with Autocad file formats for compatibility. Usually within a couple months Microstation has caught up to Autocads new file format everytime it changes and then rolls it back to the community. If someone wanted to run with it I believe Microstation could topple Autocad....especially if an opensource Unix alternative were created that closely resembled Microstation....There are a lot of Microstation users pining for a Unix version (including me).

Re:Title is completely wrong

[CFrankBernard]

Please don't use your litterary-lashing [no sic], verbal-vommit, anal-alliteration against sweet and innocent chocolate :)

file format extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Autodesk has been ripping engineering firms off since AutoCAD R14. Everything since then has been fluff, and the only reason small firms pay the multi-thousand dollar fees to upgrade is because all the other firms are doing the same thing. Much like MS Word, they change the file format with every release and spare nary a thought for backward compatability. Which means that if you save a drawing with simple lines in R2002, you can't open it in R14.

PS - you can run R14 on Linux, using WINE: http://www.architectafrica.com/bin0/news200411111_ wine.html

Re:file format extortion

[iggymanz]

dude, R14 came out in 1997, if the price of AutoCAD and CADD stations isn't an insignificant chunk of your company's product development budget, your company either has less than 4 employees or is doomed, and you should be using hand drawings rather than CADD, it's faster

Re:file format extortion

[j79zlr]

Or use LT like my firm does. We use a mix of 2000i-2006LT, so we set the default save as as 2000 format. You don't have to update with every version release. I do agree however that nearing $4000 for a license is pretty steep, but AutoCAD was not meant for personal use. LT is still around $800.

Re:file format extortion

[iggymanz]

besides, for personal use of AutoCAD, there's the obvious and naughty solution 8D Doesn't hurt my conscience any, I've req'd millions of dollars worth of the stuff at work

Re:file format extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you don't know a lot about the consulting engineering business. Indeed there are many, many companies with very few employees, and the extortion committed by AutoDesk is quite onerous.

Re:file format extortion

[mabhatter654]

but you can't email hand drawings.... many, many small shops have to deal with autocad to get business. Sure, it's only $x,000 for a license, but it's only the smallest part of what they do.. imagine paying $3,000 to read email! I've been on the IT end of some of this stuff and it's really fustrating. Much like with Microsoft Word.. if one customer [big corp with deep pockets and cheap contract] upgrades you either fork out [at more than full price] or don't get business.

For comparison, imagine the outcry if Adobe trippled the cost of Photoshop over 5 years. Now tell people "just don't use it".

Re:file format extortion

[iggymanz]

If I was in a small mechanical or ae shop, I'd just have one copy of AutoCAD and import/export to/from cheaper or free internal CADD package. A tad of autolisp goes a long way to automatically pretty up the outbound drawings. You'd only need to update every 5 years or so, so divide $3500 by 5 and it's not so bad

From the mouth of Autodesk...

[cutecub]

KQED FM's Forum program had Marcia Sterling, senior vice president, general counsel and secretary of Autodesk on their program recently.

The discussion covered Intellectual Property in information technology.

I'd be willing to bet, based on Marcia's responses during the discussion, that Autodesk is definately NOT embracing open source.

Also represented on the program was the EFF and Stanford Law School.

Link to Nov 21 Forum broadcast

-S

Animator Pro, baby!

[swerk]

...The Win32 "Animator Studio" was ok too, but holy crap, that old DOS Animator Pro was one of my favorite programs ever. I'm quite fond of Gimp and its animation plugin (whose name eludes me for the moment) but I fell in love with PC animation with Animator Pro. I still use the term "Vgrad" from time to time! :^)

Oh, and the "Poco" script language... Man. I never thought I'd see the day where I missed running anything from DOS.

C'mon Autodesk, dig up that ancient code and release it into the wild! I'd even hack away at it myself if it meant I could get it to run on GNU/Linux...

Re:Animator Pro, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I'm still using the original Animator, on at least a weekly basis! It works beautifully in DOSemu. Even if they just released the binaries for free that would really make my day.

Well...

[Stu L Tissimus]

Personally? Woopdee-frikin-doo. A map program (I'm guessing), just what I've always wanted. Autodesk has some extremely popular, yet extremely expensive programs under its' hood. Why not give us the source code for, say, AutoCAD? Maya? 3DSMax? Until they open-source-ify something useful, just file this under public relations BS.

DWG DXF open formats?

[Kingpin]

Are the AutoDesk file formats even open? I've been trying to find a nice and stable converter (to eg. PNG/Flash and so on) for these formats for Linux for quite a while.

Re:DWG DXF open formats?

[iggymanz]

DXF has published spec, there are commercial apps such as Able Graphic Manager (and others, try googling something like "dxf bitmapped converter"), there are also converters for AutoCAD's own native DWG format to other vector formats. I myself find it best to just do screenshots of rendered models and drawings, better looking than any converter since there's just too many variables going to an extremely complex vector CADD file to bitmaps formats.

Re:DWG DXF open formats?

[shibashaba]

Openoffice can read them, and most any cad software. Like the other poster said though, there's a lot of variables and from my experience if it's an extremely complicated file you'll probably have to try a lot of different software to get it imported the way you want. Of course, I was using a raster to bitmap converter on high resolution graphics, so that may have been why I was having some issues getting programs to import them well. :) I did get better results with autocad files than some of the other formats the program could generate.

Re:DWG DXF open formats?

[Rinkhals]

Kingpin, try what I use: DConvert.exe (obainable as a public file at Opendwg.org). I think it works under wine.....

Re:DWG DXF open formats?

[walshy007]

blender can import DXF just fine, nice open source solution :)

Re:Alright, the gloves are coming off.

[dsyu]

The next person to mention open source is going get a can of whop-ass opened up on them

So, is the act of opening the can of whoop-ass what results in an ass-kicking? Or is it the
contents of the can of whoop-ass?

For example, is it better to say, "Time to open a can of whoop-ass", or "Time to open a can of whoop-ass on you"?

Autodesk open Source

[publicStatic]

Notice anyone missing?

Re:Autodesk open Source

[garaged]

you mean my company ?? -- BG

Re:Alright, the gloves are coming off.

[Heembo]

And please, this project looks very interesting. Can you please open-source your "whop-ass" methodologies?

Mapping software

[everphilski]

RTFA... they are opening a piece of mapping software, not AutoCAD.

-everphilski-

Warning: The Following is not a publicity stunt...

[Chaffar]

At the end of the article:

"Autodesk, Inc. is wholly focused on ensuring that great ideas are turned into reality. With over seven million users, Autodesk is the world's leading software and services company for the building, manufacturing, infrastructure, digital media, and wireless data services fields. Autodesk's solutions help customers create, manage, and share their data and digital assets more effectively. As a result, customers turn ideas into competitive advantage by becoming more productive, streamlining project efficiency, and maximizing profits."

This article was not written, endorsed, and paid for by Autodesk,Inc.http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=adsk&d=t . This article provides objective opinions. We are your friends...

Why should an article finish with a paragraph of marketing b*llsh*t? I mean, if you're going to pay a guy to write a nice article for you, shouldn't he at least try to not make it so obvious? Or is it just standard practice nowadays?

OpenAutoCAD?

[Doc Ruby]

How about an open source app, or just a nonpriced app, that can import AutoCAD files, edit them, and export AutoCAD?

Re:OpenAutoCAD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, you can make your own: http://www.intellicad.org/

Speaking as an 11 years Autodesk client...

[Bullfrog]

Autodesk is rapidly becoming a software rental company. Owning an AutoCAD license outright is possible, but upgrade pricing is more than their subscription pricing and every release you fall behind basically doubles the fee to upgrade. Once you are about 3 releases behind your permanent license reaches its "end of life" and is no longer upgradable, so you are forced to relicense the program at full fee if you want the latest version. Sometimes you are forced into the latest version by industry pressure. AutoCAD no longer writes to R14 format, only R12 DXF! So for the thousands and thousands of R14 users out there, open your cheque books and get with the program! Get new software! Stay current! Relearn (or ignore) the exciting new features. Oh, and you'll need new hardware too...

What Autodesk are very, very good at is making money. They will not give up their upgrade gravy train, nor grant any rights to consumers that would disrupt that revenue stream. To keep their user base in line they have introduced the subscription model for upgrades. Skip subscription for a year or two and try to get back on and you'll be up for each year you skipped PLUS late fees. Stay on the subscription-go-round and you get a brand spanking new release every year, complete with MAJOR bugs and bloatware features like .NET integration. But guess what? You can only register and use the current version, so if it's out, you get it, and HAVE to use it. Too bad it may be bug-ridden and s-l-l-l-o-o-o-w-w-w, let alone not work properly with your customisations.

To placate customers who are irrate at being force to use the current version, Autodesk graciously allow subscription clients to license the immediate previous release, but only while it remains the immediate previous release. Once a new release is out, you have to move up to the next previous release (which may or may not work with your customisations, etc.) If you require the use of any previous release they will, at their sole discretion, grant you temporary licenses to use a previous release (usually for 3-6 months at a time).

And they wonder why piracy and abuse of their licensing is rife...

Bullfrog

Re:Warning: The Following is not a publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

"This article was not written, endorsed, and paid for by Autodesk"

Uhhh... because that is, in fact, an Autodesk press release. It's from a source on Yahoo called 'PRNewswire'

Looking to the wrong side

[fran.tsao]

Everybody ask Autodesk for open formats, port AutoCAD to Linux... but it's a technical mistake!
We must ask Bentley for freeing Microstation for Linux. Bentley has opened its .dgn format (and it's technically better than Autodesk's .dwg): http://www.bentley.com/en-us/corporate/opendgn/. Microstation was programmed first for Unix, but the last release to Linux was Microstation 95. Bentley only supports the Windows version today, it would be a very good present they free the Linux version code.

Give me a break, or at least gimme back GMax!

[syousef]

Autodesk killed off GMax about 2 months ago. It was a fantastic piece of free as in beer but not open source software. Lots of people relied on it, particularly in the game mod community. If you want to build aircraft for MS flight sim, it's one of two options. Battlefield 1942 supported it. Battlefield 2 released it's kit just in time. KnifeEdge software who've been promising an aircraft editor for their R/C aircraft sim have instead gone with a private beta for 3dsMax, citing licensing issues - this effectively means there are only a handful of people who can develop aircraft for the product since 3dsMax literally costs several thousand dollars.

I wonder how long the free version of Maya will last under their stewardship.

Autodesk is not one of my favourite companies.

Re:Give me a break, or at least gimme back GMax!

[michaelbuddy]

The "free" version of Maya, ain't free. It's so hindered that you can't really produce with it, you can only learn.

If you create something in Maya Learning edition, and then save it, even if you bought full version maya 2 weeks later, you couldn't open that cool model you made with the learning edition. So I don't think Maya free will be threatened, it doesn't really give away the goods anyway, unlike Gmax which was pretty awesome for lower poly modeling, i.e. game models and such.

get blender instead. It's awesome. http://www.blender.org/

Re:Give me a break, or at least gimme back GMax!

[mabhatter654]

but Blender is missing key plugins to convert file formats...or they're really buggy. Nobody put the work into it because "GMax is free!" I've been looking for simple tools for Warcraft 3 or quake 3 and there are some import/export for blender, but nothing that can do the whole deal.

AutoDesk=Microsoft

[T-Keith]

For those who havn't used Autodesk's software, they are the microsoft of the CAD world. Their software is only popular because it of its wide spread use and the difficulty of converting software. AutoCAD makes IE look cutting edge and great to work with, and is probably one of the most bloated format's I've seen. Inventor, now on release 10, is still an incomplete product compared to other 3D software and Mechanic Desktop makes me want to draw on an etch-a-sketch.

Re:AutoDesk=Microsoft

[ScottyH]

Just out of interest, what are some alternatives? I really don't know.

Go to Directions Magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article written by a "GIS journalist" instead of just looking at Autodesk's press release and you might get a better idea about open source GIS (web mapping in particular): http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_i d=2037

Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people should do a little homework before [submitting,posting] and article... MapServer has been open source ever since the Univ Minnesota started it back in 1996. The story isn't that Autodesk is releasing a closed source software to the OSS community, it's that they are backing an open source software and community.

I've been using MapServer for several years now, running it happily on various versions of RedHat, and lately a CentOS Linux box.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should do just that yourself?

UMN Mapserver -> Mapserver Cheetah

MapGuide (previously closed source) -> Mapserver Enterprise

Mapserver Enterprise != Mapserver Cheetah

If they're embracing open source...

[rice_burners_suck]

If they're so serious about open source, why don't they GPL the code for AutoCAD? Just kidding, I know they wouldn't do that. But I do wish they'd release a version for the Mac. AutoCAD, SolidWorks, and Mastercam are the only applications that keep us using Windows here. The rest of our work is done with free software or in-house software, which has, over the years, migrated from DOS machines to Windows machines to Linux and FreeBSD, and now, to the Mac, and with commercial software that has either a Linux or a Mac version. If only those three powerhouse applications worked on the Mac, there would be NO MICROSOFT SOFTWARE in this company!

Re:If they're embracing open source...

[tyrione]

Contact SolidThinking and check out their product line. I'm sure they might be able to help you out for some of your Mac requirements.

http://www.solidthinking.com/

They have 3 programs: Forma, Design and Vantage.

Here is their growing customer base:

http://www.solidthinking.com/products/customers.ht m

Fedora Core 3 - build problem

[Rick Richardson]

$ ./configure
$ make
[snipped]
gcc -shared IOAreaRule.lo IOAreaSymbolization.lo IOAreaTypeStyle.lo IOBaseMapDefinition.lo IOBaseMapLayer.lo IOBaseMapLayerGroup.lo IODrawingLayerDefinition.lo IOExtra.lo IOFeatureLayerDefinition.lo IOFeatureScaleRange.lo IOFill.lo IOLabel.lo IOLineRule.lo IOLineSymbolization.lo IOLineTypeStyle.lo IOMapDefinition.lo IOMapLayer.lo IOMapLayerCommon.lo IOMapLayerGroup.lo IOMapLayerGroupCommon.lo IOMarkSymbol.lo IONameStringPair.lo IOPointRule.lo IOPointSymbolization.lo IOPointTypeStyle.lo IORasterTypeStyle.lo IOStroke.lo IOTextSymbol.lo IOUtil.lo MdfParser.lo SAX2Parser.lo stdafx.lo -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/home/rick/tmp/mapserverenterprise-0.9.1/Commo n/MdfModel/.libs -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/mapserverenterprise/lib -L/home/rick/tmp/mapserverenterprise-0.9.1/Common/ MdfModel -L/home/rick/tmp/mapserverenterprise-0.9.1/Oem/dbx ml-2.1.8/install/lib /home/rick/tmp/mapserverenterprise-0.9.1/Common/Md fModel/.libs/libMdfModel.so -lxerces-c -Wl,-soname -Wl,libMdfParser.so.7 -o .libs/libMdfParser.so.7.0.0 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lxerces-c
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [libMdfParser.la] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/rick/tmp/mapserverenterprise-0.9.1/Common/M dfParser'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rick/tmp/mapserverenterprise-0.9.1/Common'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1

Re:Fedora Core 3 - build problem

[emidln]

Well, xerces is an xml parser if memory serves and it looks like it either isn't install, or the makefile thinks it's in a nonstandard place. Did you check the documentation?

I thought MapServer already was Open Source

[ngunton]

Could someone please enlighten me here? I thought that MapServer already was an Open Source project. In fact, I have played with it some. It is a very nice server-based solution for generating interactive maps. So what is this "announcement" all about really? Wasn't MapServer Open Source already? Is this some kind of takeover of the MapServer project by someone else?

I don't know much at all about AutoDesk, I am just wondering what's really changed in MapServer land.

TIA

Re:I thought MapServer already was Open Source

[enjahova]

MapServer was and is opensource. It was a project at University of Minnesota. What happened here is that a MapServer Foundation was created to oversee the project (like the Apache foundation). Autodesk is financially supporting this.

The difference is that a more official structure, or foundation if you will, is given to a very necessary project. Now competition in GIS internet mapping should just be between MapServer and ArcIMS, and hopefully MapServer will catchup/surpass ArcIMS soon.

http://mapserverfoundation.org/

About 10 years too late

[cprice]

Anyone here actually administered autodesk systems? What a crapshoot...

mod parent up more

[enjahova]

This is a very good answer to the grandparents. However I do think Autodesk has a competitor: ESRI.

In Florida and the south east (as well as other regions I believe) ESRI has a strangle hold on GIS tools. GIS being Geographic Information Systems. MapServer (the open source project that the foundation is being established for) and MapGuide compete with ESRI's ArcIMS and their newly released ArcGIS. IMS stands for internet mapping service, and while GMaps could be considered an internet mapping service, I believe the parent poster was right in saying it is as picassa to photoshop.

This is extremely good news for internet mapping, Counties and states spend millions on mapping projects, and the overhead could go way down with open source. My work directly involves ESRI's ArcIMS and we would like nothing more to move to open source. In fact we have been looking at MapServer, and are currently experimenting with it.
Great news.

Re:OpenAutoCAD? Can we say VariCAD?

[davidsyes]

For those of you asking about Open Source-friendly CAD software, check out:

www.varicad.de

Also, check out:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/subsubsection 2_85_0_5_10.html

where they state on their page:

"AutoCAD as an open system
    With the re-architecting of the internals of AutoCAD anticipated for Release 12 (the OOPS project), Autodesk will be in a position to take a bold step which, if successful, may ensure the preeminence of AutoCAD for the next quarter century, greatly accelerate the pace of AutoCAD development, and establish a new paradigm for the relationship between a PC software vendor and its customers which our competitors will find difficult to emulate.

I'm talking about making the source code for AutoCAD available, and before you stop reading, let me explain the reasons for such a move as well as the means I've come up with for testing the concept without incurring any substantial risk."

See:

http://www.defcar.es/

(Click on English, if you can't read Espan~ol)

As for shipbuilding, check out Defcar. Some of their software still runs on Win95. If that is so, then how hard can it be to just run the stuff in WINE, CrossOver, or something else?

For those using SolidWorks, and are worried about staying within license counts, see:

http://www.solidworks.com/pages/partners/PartnerDe tails.html?ID=488&ProductID=317

But, if major corporations (and, in their free time, aspiring Linux sysadmins) actually take VariCAD for a spin and add it to their portfolios or resumes, then maybe hiring managers will be keen to hire people who actually have user experience with VariCAD. Hopefully VariCAD gets enough activity and paying customers to enable them to add those few extra enticing pieces people don't see in VariCAD.

I am sure VariCAD can integrate with Star Office and OpenOffice.org, and maybe even other word processing suites/apps.

But, to expect AutoCAD to weaken ms' posterior probiscus is probably folly. Maybe AutoCAD LIKES the pelvic torsion and gyration?

DS

title completely RIGHT: RTFA

[enjahova]

Did you RTFA? The first sentance? AutoDesk set up a foundation for the MapServer project. It is community based, and financially supported by AutoDesk. They are helping move the responsibility from University of Minnesota to an independant foundation (like Apache). Still don't believe it?

http://mapserverfoundation.org/

Maybe they see value in open sourcing something they were developing because it was too costly to compete with ESRI? or even to costly to compete with the free MapServer? Either way the title is absolutely right no matter how much you dont want it to be.

Re:title completely RIGHT: RTFA

[digitect]

The only value AutoDesk sees in OSS is the way they can tie their proprietary CAD/GIS software into it. They don't want to do the work, but they want to charge you to use it. They would rather give away a clearly definable service to stay in control rather than loose the advantage to someone like, say, Google. They are trying to avoid someone else taking the lead as seen in SketchUp's Google Map linking.

Re:Autocad - Don't count on it

[Anonymous Coward]

For insight into AutoDesk's true position on open source and intellectual property rights, you may want to listen to this radio program (Forum - KQED), which features Marsha Sterling, General Counsel for AD. I believe she was decidedly on the closed source side of the fence.

It's crap anyway

[Hits_B]

No wonder they are giving it away. Autodesk does CAD very very well. It's foray into GIS with its AutoCAD Map was a half-assed attempt that resulted in a piece of crappy software that wasn't worthy of the 1's and 0's that were used to create it. Stick with what you know.

Yeah...uhhh...it's AutoDesk.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're about as friendly to open source as trees were to Sonny Bono. The only reason AutoDesk even exists is due to the income they extort from past customers that are forced into upgrading a bunch of AutoCAD licenses at $1000+ USD a pop every year so they can open drawings from their clients.

Please, please don't ever use AutoDesk as an example of anything positive ever again.

Pro-standard OSS CAD is wishful thinking

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Disclaimer: I write libraries used in things like CAD software for a living. This post is based on my personal impressions of the industry as a whole, and does not represent the views of my employer or anyone else working in the business.

I think fully capable, open source CAD software is a great example of why OSS works well for mass market applications, but will never realistically compete with traditional, commercial applications in a more specialist field. I think those who don't work in the industry often fail to appreciate that we're talking about some of the largest, most complex software applications in the world here!

For the benefit of those not in the know, let me try to describe the scale of the task "create a professional standard CAD package". A conservative estimate of the effort required to produce a mid-range, pro-standard package is 1,000,000 man-hours. (It's taken a lot more than that for most of these companies to get where they are today, but let's assume we're basically cloning with at least some idea of what we're doing, and not repeating all of the past two decades' R&D as well.) The guys who work on the software that goes into a pro standard CAD package are generally pretty good programmers with strong academic backgrounds, so the total cost of the development staff alone is measured well into eight figures of dollars at commercial rates, and remember this is a conservative estimate.

In other words, to come up with an OSS alternative of just what we have today from the major vendors, you'd need to have something like a team of 50 skilled and knowledgable developers working full-time with good project management for a decade. I don't believe any OSS project is capable of attracting that in a non-mass-market field, nor is ever likely to be.

Re:Pro-standard OSS CAD is wishful thinking

[jackbird]

Well, considering some larger AEC firms have written their own CAD systems in-house, a few of which are still in use today in the odd nook and cranny, and how incredibly pissed off almost everybody is at Autodesk (Bentley's promotional rhetoric wouldn't be remotely acceptable in most other fields), I could see an industry consortium getting together to do exactly that.

Half the top 100 firms might pony up to sponsor a single coder for a few years with the promise of getting out from under ADSK's thumb at the end of the rainbow.

Re:Pro-standard OSS CAD is wishful thinking

[xtracto]

I agree with you.
I think another clear example would be 3D modelling. Nowadays Blender is The OpenSource 3D modelling package but the comunity got it just because some propietary company decided to sell its rights & source.

I think it would have been quite impossible to make those kind of programs by the O.S. comunity alone. The same can be said for OpenOffice (another big good program) the base code was donated by a propietary company (and it is giving some resources even now).

So, I think it would be really, really difficult to create those programs as a "hobby".

Yeah, Shure

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me back when I can run Architectural Desktop on an open platform.

Or 3D Studio MAX.

This is the only reason I continue to have windows workstations at my workplace, that Autodesk is a de-facto standard and they require you to have windows and IE6 running.

Also I would love to see some open CAD aplications that can somehow interact with the AutoCAD platform a la OO.org

I can keep on dreaming

CAD Formats

[jbengt]

I would be much more impressed if they just published their file formats and opened them up for interoperability.
As it is, in an attempt to force upgrades, they no longer support saving to their own file formats when those formats are more than a few years old. And they change the formats almost every year. And they've even started adding weak encryption in places for no reason other than to make the format harder to reverse engineer.

More articles from the geospatial community

[Lord Satri]

Here's some links from the geospatial community, reacting to this great announcement.
First, there is this very interesting analysis:
http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_i d=2037
There's also this interesting comment:
http://geovisualisation.com/WordPress/?p=223
And some comments on this:
http://industry.slashgisrs.org/article.pl?sid=05/1 1/28/1453240

This Autodesk announcement is one of the most important news in a great while (since Google Map/Earth made some geospatial tools known to the world?).

Re:OpenAutoCAD? Can we say VariCAD?

[Doc Ruby]

Now we just need the source to Mathematica and we can merge it with AutoCAD.

Correct whoop-ass usage

[alienmole]

Clearly, if you're going to open a can of whoop-ass, you want to make sure the ass-whooping effects are directed towards the intended target. Thus, regardless of whether it's the act of opening the can or the contents of the can which result in the ass-whooping, the correct thing to say is "Time to open a can of whoop-ass on you", assuming "you" is the intended target.

However, it would be redundant to say "Time to open a can of whoop-ass on your ass", and your English teacher would definitely penalize you for using such a construction.

AutoDesk!=Microsoft, sort of. Maybe.

[antispam_ben]

Just out of interest, what are some alternatives? I really don't know.

I looked around the Web a couple years ago for just that, and found Intellicad http://www.intellicad.org/, more specifically, Cadopia's version http://www.cadopia.com/. After a 30-day trial version, they extorted $150 from me for the basic version 4.0 (much cheaper than the "Autocad Lite" or whatever it's called). I've used earlier versions of Autocad, and found Intellicad to be very compatible and easier to use. OTOH I don't do a whole lot of cad, so if you do, take this micro-review with a grain of salt.

No matter what .dwg/Autocad compatible software you get, it will be perhaps a year or two behind Autocad's latest features and .dwg formats. If you're sure you don't have to read others' .dwg files from the latest versions of Autocad, you're in a much better position to use 'something else', but I suspect a whole lot of people have to read others' files which could include the latest formats.

I thought I saw a flying pig go by...

[antispam_ben]

But then I read enough to see that this had nothing to do with Autocad, the .dxf file format, or anything that would Especially Good to be more open-source-like.

Nothing to see here folks, move along now... Surely there's a Lego article you want to read and comment on...

Better article

[Anonymous Coward]

This article provides a more neutral point of view of this move. It also has some opinions from the other parties involved.

Your design data is trapped and they have the key

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I'd just have one copy of AutoCAD and import/export to/from cheaper or free internal CADD package.

That doesn't really work well enough. Translating CAD geometry between applications stinks, has stunk, and will continue to stink. It's not just Autodesk, its all the CAD companies. Pretty much all of them have NO incentive to make it easy for their users to allow all the data to be easily exported. As an example, lets say you insert a "smart object" into the drawing - a set of stairs. As you stretch the object, it calculates the number of steps (etc) and draws the stairs properly. When you export, you MIGHT get a static drawing of the correct number of steps, but you usually get nothing but a marker that indicates that a missing smart object goes here. Now imagine a building drawing with all the doors, plumbing, fixtures, electrical and such are smart objects. Your exported drawing contains very little. This would be like exporting a MS Word document into a plain text file, but missing any spell-corrected words.

To make matters worse, the documented DXF format leaves out a lot of stuff, and the default DWG format is encrypted. To be fair, Autodesk says it is not encrypted, but the Open Design Aliance has a different view.

If you want to stop this madness, I would suggest we start requiring an OpenDWF compatible file format. OpenDWG is fully documented, and is used by most of the big CAD companies, except Autodesk. If Goverment and industry started requiring OpenDWG formated files, things would improve somewhat. But too much design data is lost when you move files between CAD programs, so I thing this has gotten beyond repair. The landscape will change with a new product arrives that wipes out the previous generations. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Qcad

[jwhal]

Anybody with any kind of (good) programming experience should be contributing to Qcad - make it do the things that Autodesk Land Desktop can do!!! If I could program, I would help. But I can't program worth a dime!!!

Re:Your design data is trapped and they have the k

[iggymanz]

The companies where I've worked really didn't really want "smart objects" to go out the door anyway, only enough data so contractor or fabricator could do their work, not enough that competitors could steal ideas. The default dwg format isn't encrypted by the way, it's merely complicated, OpenDWG sounds very AutoCAD-centric too, how well is say a Pro/E or CATIA model going to fare in that format? Some vendors prefer IGES for vendor neutral format, maybe we should just beef that up.

Re:Your design data is trapped and they have the k

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

Yes, there are times I don't want "smart objects" or my parametric properties to go out the door. But the inability to completely transfer with 100% accuracy (or close) prevents me from easily changing from one vendor to another. It's called "lock-in", and the CAD vendors are experts at the game.

I'm good friends with a programmer, who has worked with code used to read the 2005 DWG format, and he insists that it IS encrypted. Autodesk says it is not - that the code provides error checking. But it would appear that it is nothing of the sort. It provides no such error checking, and the encryption key changes in different sections of the code. Perhaps they intend to change the key in future versions, keeping the competition off balance. It is not understood how they create the key, so current versions might have the ability to read future versions of DWG - or perhaps not.

It leaves me the impression that it was designed to put a lock on my data - MY DATA. It has been suggested that for me to decode MY DATA in their file format might be a violation of DMCA. I object to the vendor being able to control access to my data in such a way. It's bad enought when its in a closed format, but when it becomes illegal for me to decode my data, it suggests that the vendor has sinister intentions.

Oh, yeah. I'm told the EULA gives the the right to come into your place of business and inspect computers that are running their software. I can't confirm this, since I stopped upgrading and began a slow evolution to a competitors software. I'm 5 years into changing and I'm sure I'll be finished in another 5. That's because we are redrawing almost everything from scratch in Solidworks (and I've no love for them, either). I've always loved AutoCAD, but like my 1971 MGB, she's become a rusty old gal.

I'd rather use McNeel's Rhino. Amazing software and translates more formats than anything out there. And the open the file format in the SDK, I believe. Cheap, too. Alas, I'm not the boss here.

Quite a Turnaround

[Tellalian]

I remember 5 years ago, if you bought a license for Autocad's 3D Studio Max, you couldn't even sell it to someone else. I don't mean you couldn't sell copies of the software (illegal of course). I mean you couldn't sell the original box, manual, cd with the software on it; basically, everything you paid for. If you aren't satisfied with your $1000 investment, tough. No refunds, no transfers. You're stuck with it forever. Try and sell it online, like on Ebay, and your posting would be quickly deleted followed by a "polite" email from one of their lawyers explaining how you were in breach of the license. It was one of the most restrictive licenses in the industry, and unsurprisingly *not* reflected in competing products such as Maya or Lightwave. I believe Autocad has since changed its licensing policies, but to the extend of embracing open-source, this is quite the turn-around.

Re:Quite a Turnaround

[Tellalian]

And yes, I meant to say "Autodesk" instead of "Autocad". Software creating and selling other software with restrictive licensing terms is too terrible a thought to even imagine.