Slashdot Mirror
Pro/Engineer for Linux Poll
BTT writes "Parametric Technology is taking a poll on whether or not they should port Pro/E to Linux. Check out www.ptc.com and cast a vote. " For those of who aren't familar with Parametric, they make one of the premier CAD applications.
Subject says it all. There is no point in them getting a false picture of demand and ending up them getting burned for it. Of course I wouldn't expect any serious company to rely of a non-scientific poll to make a business decision.
Pro-engineer is VERY expensive and not the type of program you decide to just buy and play around with for fun (unless your a mechanical engineer, then you have my sympathies.) 8,000$-$15000 a seat is about right, depending on the modules you buy with it. But if your a mechanical engineering company its worth it.
Strangely enough my mom used to work for them, they translate there software into many languages and the company is unix based (my mom doesn't like VI, and complains endlessly...)(also tells a good story about them buying a civic and taking it apart to model for "pro engine.. but I digress...)
The software is already available on UNIX and was only fairly recently ported to NT (Due to competion from "Solid Works" so a linux version shouldn't be hard.
I really doubt anyone on slashdot is really interested in buying this software, so I don't know how responsible it would be to vote. If they did the port and there was no demand, they might discontinue it and when Linux has more completely taken over the Workstation OS market, they'll probably think twice about going over.
I wonder if you can parametrically model software?
Please stop posting these things on slashdot. Admittedly, these sorts of polls aren't scientific at all, but these companies do use them to judge the opinions of their target market. It's safe to say that if you didn't happen across this poll by browsing PTC's site yourself, you're not in the target market, so you shouldn't vote.
Keep in mind, also, that by posting these things on this site, it's really easy for a site to look at the server logs and simply reject all votes that came from a /. referral, so there's very little point to it, anyway.
I have been asking for this for a long time. For the longest time, PTC only supported NT on Intel hardware... that meant if you wanted to take advantage of the fast hardware that is available for x86 boxes, you HAD to go with NT. Very sad.
The only issue right now is having drivers for high-end 3d cards available for Linux. Even having 3d support for a RIVA TNT card would be great. Pro/E requires HEAVY DUTY graphics support. Hopefully this is not too far behind.
I saw this poll last week, and almost submitted it as a slashdot story, but decided (quite strongly,) against it. Tomorrow, we'll see ten thousand registrants for the poll, all supporting linux, by people who don't even have a clue as to what Pro/E is.
My personal opinion is that Linux isn't ready for Pro yet. Linux doesn't support the necessary 3d hardware yet, so a version of Pro (or any other serious CAD package,) for linux would be quite limited.
Maybe in a few years...
sKroz
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
I was once offered a job as system administrator at PTC in Japan... turned them down, but considering where I am now, I should have taken them up on it...
Anyway, their apps run to several thousand dollars a license, so any place that's running them is going to have plenty of money to throw around, which makes me wonder a bit about the demand for Pro/E on Linux.
Ok I have to say a few things about this. It't long so if you don't feel for MCAD, then blow past this one....
:-P ) going for NT are:
There are a few big unix based MCAD packages right now doing everything that they can to get their software to be windows NT friendly. I find it interesting that these companies will give up the strengths that the UNIX development brought them in exchange for compatability, and the "chance" to sell the same software cheaper.
In the last few years the CAD market has matured such that high priced UNIX workstations are no longer seen as a value. Linux could very well change this. (I for one really hope this happens!) Nobody minds buying a PC, but a Sun or SGI machine is a tough sell these days. Basically there has to be no other alternative, otherwise the sale will goto an NT machine.
There are a number of smaller, newer competetors in the MCAD arena, and they are entirly based on NT, and they are using "Sell lots of cheap software and make money later" business model. They are totally embracing the Microsoft development, marketing, and implementation model. The older established MCAD vendors need something new as a differentator; otherwise, they will just continue to lose market share until they own niche markets. Linux based systems could change this, but there are some things that need to be addressed before software ports are truly attractive to these companies, and their users.
1. Good solid 3d Open-GL. This is a requirement. Solid modelers consume graphic resources when they are not computing model geometry. A users performance is directly related to the 3D capabilities of the workstation in question.
2. Office compatiblity. Many engineers now have to schedule, e-mail, and perform basic office tasks using M$ software. This is one of the primary reasons UNIX machines are being displaced. Most, if not all of the companies do not like two machines on one engineers desk. Many engineers do not really want to know anything about the software they use. It gets in the way. Not that they are not capable users, they just want to be users only. When M$ wins on the office desktop, UNIX in the R&D department is on borrowed time.
3. Standard Linux distros. The biggest selling points, in this market (true or not
- Ability to standardize on inexpensive hardware.
- Ease of Administration. I know that they do not yet realize what this one will cost them in the long run, but for now this is key.
- Compatability. (also mentioned above.)
4. Good user tools. What does the average user do? Get good OpenSource tools that work together across Distros that accomplish common user tasks. Easy stuff should be easy. (Printing, Plotting, moving files, finding files that sort of thing.) M$ currently makes easy stuff easy for the average Joe user. Problem is Hard things are Impossible.
These MCAD comapnies that come from UNIX roots have a fair number of reasons to port also.
1. Marketing. If any one of them actually does it, then they will get a lot of attention in a market that generally is hard to get to listen.
2. Absolute control of the User Interface. The Windows GUI was meant for the average computer user. All the Solid Modelers I know really know their package. A few clicks here and there matter. If a package must conform to the windows "Look and Feel" then their ability to compete on this basis is sharply limited.
3. Leverage of existing tools and technology. X windows is great. Someday customers better realize that they could purchase a few very capable servers, and let their power users use them, from any machine in the building. NT does not allow for Network computing, and this market needs it.
4. Ability to push compute envelope beyond current Intel Technology. Right now if you top out your new shiny NT workstation with a large assembly, you are stuck. If you were using X you could just rlogin into a more powerful machine for that task, or maybe you could go with an Alpha machine, or maybe PowerPC. Either way, top performance would be available to those that are willing to pay for it. NT currently is a dead end here right now. BTW Cad performs poorly on Multi Processor machines due to its serial nature.
5. The other NT based competetors will have to do one hell of a re-write in order to compete, or compete on other strengths. Their reliance on pure Microsoft tools will insure this. Using Linux correctly will raise the bar in many areas that are currently taken for granted by much of this market.
--Happily running MCAD and Design Apps on an SGI.
Blogging because I can...
Just imagine being in a business where your saleability depends on the version of an app you're running. No, we're not talking about MS Word or MS anything: It's AUTOCAD & 3DSTUDIO MAX.
Most of the CAD world runs on AutoCad, despite encroachment by some third parties. While it is possible to use a 3D part product and convert to ACAD format, no vendor will work with you. Pure Acad, or HIT THE ROAD, JACK. Not surprising, considering even AutoDesk doesn't have a firm handle on their version control. For Indy Contractors, this means you use the AutoDesk product, or you don't eat.
AutoCAD desperately needs to be ported to Linux, as it would remove the hoary need to get shafted twice: Once by AutoCAD and again by MS.
Also, 3DS MAX offers network rendering capacity, but again, runs only on MS OSs. Imagine the speed, capacity, and cost per frame a render farm could manage if you could load a render client on a low cost Open Source OS! AutoDesk would have more business than they could keep up with, as every dog and his master decided to go into the business because the barrier to entry had been considerably lowered.
Opinions? Does anyone other than me see this as a GOOD THING (tm)?
flames > dev/null
As a former employee to one of PTC's largest customers I can seem the immediate benefit of porting ProE to Linux. It will cost a lot less!!!
Instead of buying $20,000 HP or Sun machines you can by a $5,000-10,000 Intel machine. Then instead of paying MS $500 a seat for Windows NT you pay $0 for Linux licenses.
So lets say you have 4,000 MCAD engineers. Your regular cost would be (20K * 4K) + (.5K * 4K) = 82K and with the Linux solution it would be (10K * 4K) + (0 * 4K) = 40K. What business in their right mind wouldn't want to knock their costs in half.
He is (Bill G. that is).
About a year and a half ago, M$ made a major investment in PTC to make Pro/Engineer run BEST on NT. The same was done with other MCAD companies, to persuade them to only develop for M$. As has been noted earlier, there is a lot of money in licensing this type of software, and M$ wants a cut through development fees.
I lamented the loss of AutoCAD from the Mac world, when it was on R12. The architectural CAD world revolved around the Mac platform. Microsoft persuaded AutoDesk to pull the Mac version (and later the poorly outfited Unix version) and only develop for Windoze. After using Autocad R13 & 14, I no longer feel the pain of this loss! It sucks!
Pro/Engineer on the other hand, was designed, and still works best on Unix. When Microsoft dumped a lot of money on PTC, Pro/E on NT was an abomination, a mere charicture of Pro/E on a real platform like HP-UX, Solaris, or Irix.
Many other CAD companies had started to move to solid rendering kernels that were designed to only run on Windows NT or 9x. This reduced their development cost, as they didn't have to develop the solid modeling code themselves, and could concentrate on user interface and other value added features. With the reduced cost of development, license costs dropped and a full scale CAD on NT pricewar erupted.
Many PHB's bought into this new commodity market for MCAD, and decided not to re-up on expensive seats like Pro/E. My former employer decided to not eschew Pro/E, as we had accumulated several years of modeled parts (legacy data), and instead force Pro/E on NT as the standard. The plain truth is that Pro/E *STILL* sucks on NT! But marketing hype makes it sell easily as a more inexpensive equivalent to Pro/E on Unix.
Now, I'm holding on to my outdated SGI box until they pry it from my cold dead fingers, at least until I can make a case for running Pro/E and *nix on a cheap comodity PC.
-- Len
I'm a student, I study engineering... why shouldn't I vote? We're obliged to use systems that are often under any reasonable efficiency level! This could be the occasion for having a really good combination between software and OS. That's why I voted "yes".
Moreover let's consider this simple thing: Linux is a free OS, paying for it is always less expensive compared to other OS. The costs of starting up a design activity would be reduced of 20% (i don't wanna exaggerate...)... anyone would do that simple step: buying a Linux licence (almost free) and buying an expensive CAD/CAM system... it certainly is less expensive than buying a workstation "all in one" (OS + CAD).