It does not run on any UNIX. They leverage the MFC heavy throughout the program. Early on, their business model was all about packaging technology, not rolling their own. Solidworks makes use of the parasolid kernel, D-cubed constraint engine, and many of the win32 application development features; such as, OLE, visual basic for applications. Their API is exposed the typical Microsoft way.
The package actually requires Microsoft Office to achieve full functionality in many areas. Excel is used for family part tables and such. BTW, this sucks because you end up with a bunch of data linked via OLE. Shaky long-term proposition given the rapid changes that have happened over the last 5 years or so.
Bringing old models up on newer version of both SW and Office often fails...
I am going to start tinkering with that. I have access to a number of packages as well.
Architectural work is significantly different from MCAD however. I realize you can use MCAD packages, often to great advantage, for this line of work, but the reverse is not true at all.
MCAD is often complex at the part level. The parametric trend, made popular by PTC, involves a high degree of automation for part, drawing and assembly creation. The level of detail required for project output is significantly different.
In my area of the company, MCAD people are a very picky bunch. Just small changes in the formatting of something causes a lot of grief. Many of them have built libraries of parametric parts they leverage to create derivative designs more quickly.
I have not seen anything running on the Mac that can approach the level of parametric design possible on PC or UNIX programs. Sad too, because the Mac is a damn good machine for this these days.
You can get it today. It is called "Wildfire". Honestly, PTC has one of the best approaches to their software development out there. They are cross-platform in a way that most other systems are not. Good for Linux.
The bad news? PTC has been hit hard these days. They spent the better part of the early 90s selling expensive software through an aggressive sales channel that has managed to piss off just about everyone who might ever be interested in their software.
Their need for high yearly costs, and constant pressure to upsell software features has made a negative impression overall regarding business with PTC.
Worse, they are in the middle of updating their (old, but fast and functional) user interface to look more like the win32 packages many people use today.
The ease of use arguement is more powerful than it should be in MCAD circles. (Again in the States at least.) Somehow, people seem to expect to do complex things easily. Putting a nice braindead GUI on top of powerful software seems to make people think they are getting something more for their money.
It is scary how much this wasted effort looks like the same command line vs GUI discussions seen here all the time.
The best approach has always been a nice mix of both. You want to make easy things easy, but continue to make impossible things possible.
This latest effort by PTC to blend in with the win32 way of doing things, has slowed down an otherwise fast and capable program. Most users have tried the upgrade and went back to a prior release.
Take a hard look at PTCs quartely numbers. Traditionally, they depend on upgrade and yearly contract revenue for a large percentage of their business. (Almost all the bigger MCAD companies do this.) Creative accounting changes upgrades into new license revenue, but if you look closely, you will find they are getting very few new customers.
They spend much of their time upselling the ones they have. Over the years, these things have come to a head. Today, they have sold most folks as much of their software as they want. The new version does not appeal to a large percentage of their customer base. Their reputation for doing hardnosed business keeps that same version from growing marketshare for them.
PTC is likely fucked.
I did run the Linux version. It worked the same as both win32 and commercial UNIX versions did. You won't ever see them demo it though. Every last one of their sales people runs their software on a win32 laptop. Customers have to ask for the Linux version. PTC has enough sales problems without having to also address OS issues in addition to their own.
What we need is ports from other vendors. As much as I dislike SolidWorks, they would be a great choice. However, they are literally married to Microsoft. Won't happen anytime soon. Perhaps other packages might.
It is really a chicken an egg thing, as my first post indicated. Nobody sees Linux and MCAD demonstrated, marketed, or pushed as a value solution, even though price is a clear consideration these days. Worse, the companies I have spoken to (and I have personally talked with product managers for quite a few) see support as a major barrier along with the cost of porting.
They claim they do not see customer demand because all they see is lots of win32 sales numbers and sharply reduced UNIX sales numbers. They don't really grok OSS at all.
They see it as a cheap UNIX that runs on a PC. They see the number of versions and wonder what to write to. They see the lack of control over what the user can and cannot do as a support liability.
All of these things are really a non issue, if they would just port to RH, for example, those of us wanting to do our own thing would be free to do so. (They don't understand that.)
As much as I want this to happen, there are major issues to be worked out at the product manager and marketing levels, of these MCAD vendors, before anything realistic is going to ha
I run I-deas on SGI IRIX, most of the time. That particular MCAD package really runs well in that configuration.
For MCAD, the primary things necessary for good performance these days is simply CPU and RAM. Most inexpensive graphics sub-systems will do what people need.
Too many people know this. Once you realize what MCAD really needs, the price difference between a PC and Sun workstations is significant when a number of users is a part of the equation.
This next bit is specific to I-deas, but could work for other packages as well.
I-deas has its own data manager built into the system. All users check-in, check-out data from a central data repository that is isolated from the users via UNIX suid function. (On win32, this is broken and users can directly see the files.)
Hosting a package like this on a multi-CPU machine can yield costs approaching PC prices, with some added advantages:
- centralized administration. Everything is on one box, data + code.
- high thoughtput between CAD and the Data Manager because everyting is on local disks. No network issues to deal with.
I setup a couple of these using SGI systems for the CAD, and X window software on the local PC machines. Used Samba to share home directories, so users can easily get output into their Microsoft stuff.
The whole thing works pretty well actually. Funny calling the support line though. The company has actually gotten so win32-centric they often get confused when I explain the setup. The assumption is one, user, one machine, one display. Anything else gets painful.
Anyway, the setup has one other nice attribute for those wanting to provide controlled access to data without actually letting the user have full interaction with said data.
UNIX can do this with the X window system and SUID. User runs the application, from whatever system they want, including Linux. The application then accesses data they do not have direct permission to access themselves. User can do only what the application lets them do. Pretty sweet actually, once you consider the mess the current Office 2003 DRM scheme is turning out to be.
One other advantage of this setup is that it does provide for a Linux desktop without having to port the application. To date, many people have been interested, Microsoft Office gets in the way of that... Maybe in time.
It is sad to see a user with a powerful machine waiting on a CAD application hogging a single user OS and display. Many users, who started using CAD on UNIX, know what they are missing. These days, in the States anyway, they have no idea. Waiting on the computer, or having to futz with it often is seen as the norm.
Doing this for older 2D systems seems almost doable. We might actually get somewhere with surface modelers and some solids as well.
Problem is in all the kernel tweaking and geometry case handling the existing programs have developed.
It is not easy to program for all the different geometry cases people expect programs to handle these days. One could get a pretty good kernel, but it would have to be licensed. Once that is done, building constraint engines for parametrics is damn tough.
The number of man years invested in current CAD programs is not an easy thing to match. I would *love* to see a realistic MCAD program that is GPL or licensed reasonably, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
Ports would be a better idea for development reasons, plus people have lots of legacy data to deal with. If they must maintain their old system, it will likely be done on win32.
As long as that is the case, moving to Linux is going to be a tough sell.
The good news is that most of the better backend PDM packages, will run on Linux, or at least on a UNIX. Getting EDS, Dassaut (sp?) to port would be a big start. Getting one of the popular midrange systems ported would be even better.
If we can get that, the back-end integration (hope I got that one right!) is an easier task.
If the various versions could actually be differentiated in some realistic way, I might actually consider using a more precise nomenclature.
Truth is, it all sucks and I would rather not give more brand recognition than strictly needed for conversation.
So, win32 it is.
Get a life, an account, and maybe I might consider the issue a bit further.
As far as I am concerned, you are a pimply faced, trailer trash, cocksucker, geek wannabe with no life. Anonymous no fucking backbone limpdick coward, grow the fuck up and get a life.
I know plenty of folks in Europe that run MCAD on various UNIX platforms.
In the last three years, I have not gained a single new UNIX customer. Every last one of them has been win32.
Over here the PDM move really is being pushed hard. Companies want to get hold of the product design process and manage all of it. Intergration is seen as a way to pack more tasks into an engineers day, along with the increased ability to leverage that data throughout the enterprise.
Actually, I agree with these things in principle, but win32 is the platform being pushed hard by the MCAD companies. In the last 5 years, the market has gone from features to price.
Exising UNIX customers are all planning win32 migrations, though some of their timelines are a few years off yet.
Here in America, every new product demonstration you see is on a win32 platform. Many pre-sales folks have forgotten UNIX even is an option. Nobody will mention it, unless the customer requests it.
Win32 is getting a pretty nice grip on this market. Almost all of the MCAD (mechanical CAD) companies offer win32 versions of their software.
Smaller, niche CAD players, do offer both Linux and Mac versions. PTC, one of the bigger players (for a while longer at least) does Linux today, with Mac coming.
The problem is the number of users running strong win32 based programs. (AutoCAD, Solid Edge, Solid Works) While none of these packages offer the level of capability the bigger packages do, their numbers are creating a significant network effect. Very few mechanical engineering departments, found in small to mid-sized enterprises, run anything other than win32 systems. The big players still make good use of UNIX, with Linux being rare at this point and OS X being more rare or non-existant at best.
These systems are increasingly being tied to back-end PDM (product data management systems) that aim to drive the product knowledge throughout the company. The reasons for doing this are sound, but the platform in the lead right now is win32. Given the strong intergration between win32 and office, additional intergration involving engineering and CRM software, Microsoft is getting hold of manufacturing and product design companies in a big way.
Both Linux and OS X are going to have an increasingly hard time cracking this nut. All of the MCAD sales people use win32 running laptops. Older UNIX products are being ported and adapted to run win32.
Many folks in this market do not even have Linux on their radar yet.
Given this is my area of expertise, it is a depressing story really. Linux and OSS in general are a great story that almost never gets told in this space.
Microsoft has been growing at the expense of commercial UNIX vendors, in this space for the last 8 years or so, almost unchecked. This is an area that Linux is ready for in many ways, due to its technical nature. The ECAD people along with the movie studios demonstrate this clearly.
I'm afraid, without ports to Linux from the big players, the mechanical engineering and product design markets are going to be win32 for a long time to come yet. Even with the ports, the mid-range packages (having the majority of users) are win32 only at this point, because they leverage Microsoft tools at almost every level of the software.
I fear the home software will come first. Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am.
I have a couple of pretty decent ones right now that have lived through a few systems.
Here is another bizzarre thought. Take that money and invest in a plasma that can handle computer inputs. --Very nice gaming experience! Though not portable.
I suppose for some people, this makes good sense. It is an attractive bit of tech, but for me it is just not that important. I do travel and value a nice laptop, but just don't value it that much.
though I seriously wish I could. As an alternative, I would be very interested in a portable computer that could make use of batteries.
I do agree that building your own machine is not always cheaper, but getting exactly what you want is worth a price premium to me, because I am picky.
Also, I want to support people that support Open software and hardware. Buying my own bits, or working with a base system from somebody I want to support, helps me do this.
I would rather not give Dell any of my money. Better it go locally to somebody who needs it. This BTW is one of the primary reasons I like OSS. --It gives the little guy a chance. And with the little guy, I can call somebody on the phone with a reasonable expectation that they will remember my name.
I read the books first, then heard the radio series.
For me, the appeal is in the wit. Adams can poke fun at the way things work, or could work, like no other.
Like the idea that we are decendants from all the ancillary people another race decided they didn't want. These folks sent all of their useless, unproductive people, receptionists, phone polishers and such and sent them on an automated one way journey to someplace else. When they arrived, their presense killed off the real humans who happened to just be getting started learning the basics of grunting.
The idea that our past could be something like this is unusually hard to imagine. Expressing it is highly creative. Most of the story is like that. It is just not something you see every day. In fact, it is not something we should have seen at all really.
The fact that we did is a gift, plain and simple.
The goofy names and phrases played off of the sound of things too.
Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, hoopy, Zaphod Beeblebrox... --Vogons. BTW, have you ever read of a fictional race starting with a V that people liked? Vogons just sound bad, and of course they are in the book. Adams had a sense for that that flows throughout the story. Ever read books that had good stories, but the names and places were just "off"?
Nobody wants to like the Vogons. Why? Because they are Vogons dammit! Don't you know anything? Most people would like a dinner at Milliways. Why? Because it sounds good. What else would you call the Resturant at the End of the Universe?
Seriously, I am not trying to pretend to be funny, but am really trying to make a point. The play on words often found in these stories makes immediate sense while poking fun at our preconcieved notions of things. (Spelling czars relax --it's late.)
I get the distinct feeling Adams had a feel for the written word that most of us really don't grok well enough to create like he does. Reading the books makes immediate sense, but the mindset that would produce such a work is hard to imagine.
Totally out of the box would likely be a better way of saying this.
The scale of things:
Man, the book covers immense stretches of time and distance like they are nothing. {Which they are really, but that is not my point.} You get a twisted tongue 'n cheek look at the history of mankind, a trip to the end of the universe and all of the places in between.
My little comment in brackets is typical of things you will read as well. One moment you are in the story, another you are being told something subtle that should be obvious, but really isn't until you read it. The result is often funny and thought provoking at the same time. (Not that my example is anything like that, but I had to try.)
Crazy ideas like rock concerts with entire planets used for sound... Or Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. (They turn black at the first sign of danger!)
I have never read anything like it since. Probably the only way I can express this is to say that every other story I have read can be compared to other stories. You just can't do that with the Hitchhikers Guide. It is really different. Nobody has ever said Douglas Adams stories are like _______.
Now, having written this, I feel like a total lamer. I suppose that is what I get for trying to say "why", but what the hell, you asked.
Just read the books. Take it slowly at first and let your mind wander. You will be surprised at where it might go. In a twisted sort of way, you will be better for the experience.
You are right about the fill rate. The O2 has just enough to be able to make good use of its graphics engine. The 320 was a bit better.
Fill rates aside, these machines both have big texture attributes hard to match today with any video card. Having an 800Mb image local to, even a dated graphics engine, makes quite a difference in frame rate.
SGI has a demo where the image is mapped to a plane in OpenGL. Moving scaling, filtering happens realtime in hardware. You can move, rotate, scale very large images in real time with very little effort.
This also allows the machine to overlay video onto surfaces and manupulate them in real time as well. Clearly a niche capability, but one not well matched by the PC design we see today, AGP 8x or not.
The O2 machine is still being used for various aspects of the video production process. The specific attributes that hardware has makes it well suited to the task today because they are I/O bound graphics tasks. Not much compute required.
Too bad the fill rate was not higher though. There are things the chipset can do, that are limited by the low fillrates...
I like the CD flap too. On the O2, I like the shape. It's a cool machine to have around.
Sure, lots of shops are running those two OSes. The bigger studios are leveraging Linux as hard as they can. They are not going to move.
Smaller operations do not see the economy of scale, so win32 / Mac makes perfect sense. Alias knows this, which is exactly why there are three ports of Maya.
The O2 design is good even today. For texture related tasks, the machine still performs. I own one.
Also own a 320 series machine. To say the O2 would blow the 320 series machine away is not correct. Price / performance on the 320 machines was better than just about every other PC of the time.
At the time the 320 series machines were released, lots of folks had the same thoughts you did regarding SGI and profit margins. Many of them wanted to continue with SGI, the 320 let them do this.
Funny thing about those machines. Sold lots of them. Every last customer wanted more when the line was retired. None of them came back. Most of them were in use until just a year or so ago.
Had they been able to put Linux on those machines, things would be different today. Most of the MIPS crowd thought they were a joke. Understandable given the level of engineering and performance they are used to seeing.
Lots of other people clearly saw value in the machines. People came into the building to run the machines and often bought them. The same was not true for O2 and Octane.
I thought the same thing when I saw lost in space. Also hated the cheezy use of the Intel Inside audio logo...
The big studios want it too much. Using Maya on OS X is as sweet, or sweeter than either win32 or Linux, but I think Linux will scale farther for back end tasks, at a lower cost, than OS X ever will.
Scaling is one of the top drivers for the big boys in this game. Linux has both win32 and OS X beat in the price / performance area cold.
Besides a lot of what the studios want is custom. SGI used to offer this under NDA, but it cost a lot. With Linux, they can do it far cheaper, on their time schedule, and share the bits that benefit everyone without having to repurchase and pay support on their own tech!
about $0.38 per share. Almost took out a loan. Friend talked me out of it. Rose to nearly $4.00 a short while later..
I would be inclined to buy some anyway today. Bishop has a keen eye on SGIs core market:
Technical computing
IRIX is very good for this, MIPS is holding it back though. Their efforts on Linux will pay off, in my opinion. Linux is reaching the point where it will be possible to build an IRIX like system. Heck, you can today --it is only going to get easier.
SGI is one of the few companies to make a deal with Microsoft while still around to tell about it. (Legal won't, but many SGI folks will, if you catch them in the right mood.)
If that deal hadn't been the death of their 320 / 540 series machines, we would have great Linux technical workstations right now. I am not saying you cannot get a nice Linux workstation, but the SGI plan combined their engineering with custom Linux tweaks that would have made for nice boxes.
320/540 machines could support up to about 800Mb texture memory in a UMA design. Heavy texture models perform best in this configuration, because of the low latency bandwidth it provides to the graphics sub-system.
The Linux drivers were shown at Siggraph '99, I think. Microsoft and SGI had a little tiff shortly after that. Farenheit project --it seemed at the time, win32 was poised to take over that market since it had already made quite a dent. Gates knew about all the UNIX code that had to be rewritten. Direct X got good, thanks to SGI, but not good enough to justify all that work porting to a closed, hard to administer, expensive to cluster system with little ability to script or perform multi-user.
SGI legal scuttled the Linux drivers over win32 contract terms involving the ARC boot loader. It seems Microsoft has an interest in this that prevented SGI from providing machines with choices other than win32, or something like that. (Could never get the entire story.)
The series was canned. Generic PC machines running tweaked nVidia hardware replaced them to keep existing customers trying to leverage Linux happy. Their hardware had considerable advantages over the general purpose PC, so it only made sense for SGI to move away from the whole thing.
Today we see the Altix series machines along with high end SGI hardware on the desktop. The Altix, and high-end IRIX hardware is well positioned, while IRIX struggles at the workstation level. Linux is capturing applications far better than IRIX ever did.
(Which shows just how hard they got fucked over the Microsoft deal.)
Recovering from that and other blunders has taken a while. The new products are hitting their targets nicely. It is tough for them now, being late in the game. An SGI Linux workstation likely will not happen right away because of this. (We would have had them in '01, otherwise.)
SGI systems engineering is top notch, I hope they continue to improve and continue to develop their high bandwidth, single image designs. (They are the best, if you want a single OS image instead of a cluster.)
As for Alias, the organization beats to a different drum. The Maya side of things has been handled well. Can't say the same for their Studio product. Still high priced and no Linux --yet.
Maya is a hit in the entertainment business for obvious reasons. Their other product, Studio struggles in a niche status. Good for high end product design and styling, but poor at more mainstream applications. Traditional MCAD packages continue to consume many new potential Studio sales, while also chipping away at the established base of users.
I would not count the Linux version of Maya out. Alias knows better than that. There is no way the Studios are going to be pried back to win32. Going down that road proved expensive and problematic. Linux is the perfect fit. Alias would not be where they are today without having done that port.
OSS lets them (the studios) keep control of their tools an
Thought about our posts for a bit and calmed down...
Like people? I do as well. People start out being good people and grow either direction from there. This means most of the illegal people here are decent folks. (I see this in my neck of the woods.)
You make a point I happen to share. We can use more citizens. Make them learn some American history and what it stands for. Then they have a fair shot at contributing just like everyone else does. You are dead on regarding the guys in the boats. If we spend a little money setting the right expectations and make citizens out of them, they will likely do just as you say; namely, appreciate the country.
With regard to Oregons problems, you are not being presumptuous at all. Our duly elected leaders are currently handing things out to just about anyone that happens to be here long enough to figure that out. Given the recent moves the Govenator has just made (this is just simple humor --a play on the movies, I don't yet have a stand on how Arnold is doing because it is too soon, so don't take me to task on that just yet...) Oregon is going to get worse still as we continue to maintain our friendly environment toward illegal residents.
They (our current leaders) are the problem, not the illegals. My earlier rant did not clarify that particular aspect of things anywhere near as well as it should. You called me on it fair and square. -Good call. Clearly I have built up some sensitivity and anger toward this issue. Your post brought some of that out. I am sorry about that, marked you a foe and everything. --First one. (Took it back.)
I see a lot of these folks have moved in over the years. Know what? Many of them are decent folks, as I mentioned earlier, that deserve a break. I feel for them, but let me make my position clear. I want to help fellow Americans.
What I don't want to see is people confusing the issue as I thought you did. Open Immigration means getting more citizens in this country, it does not mean let the gates open and we all pay, status be dammed.
I am not for that at all, no matter how harsh it may be. The line has to be drawn somewhere and for me that line clearly is citizenship. Have it? Happen to be down on your luck? Go ahead and get what the nation can provide. Who knows, I might be in the same spot in the future. No harm in that. Somebody can take up the slack for a while, that is how it supposed to work.
Don't have it? Leave, plain and simple. We need to find ways to help people be legal and build from there. Anything else runs counter to how the nation was built and has too many bad side effects. Like crime. Illegal people are almost untouchable in the courts. Most minor crimes like property crime result in a citation and a demand for court appearance. They can't do anything else because deporting them costs too much and Vicente doesn't want 'em back anyway. So they walk over and over again. If we had legal people here, things would be different. (Just one example, there are many others.)
That does leave me in a hard position with regard to simple human compassion, but hey I can defend that with a willingness to help people gain their citizenship. I realize no one entity can save the world, so the next best thing is to take good care of the rank and file while building the organization as best we can. Doing some good along the way is a bonus. That is why nations have some value. Belonging to a good one that demonstrates these values is worth working and fighting for. Not so sure the USA is really shining in that area right now, given recent short-term events, but you know what I mean by this. A nation running well, can likely afford to earn a little good karma through aid programs and such. (I support all of these given our own house is in reasonable order. Today it isn't.)
Too often, I see these two issues (open borders and immigration) mixed together in a way that basically says "help the poor people, they need it." Again, I am f
I am sorry, but I am going to totally blame immigrants for a lot of things. There are two kinds of these, legal and illegal.
The legal kind are good. They become citizens and pay taxes and such. Nothing wrong with this, it is a good thing that needs to continue.
The illegal ones are a big drain on our economy right now. I live in Oregon where the State is constantly asking for more taxes on top of already very high tax rates. The official dogma we hear is the "starving schools". Same crap I have heard all of my life here in Oregon. The more the illegal population rises, the sharper the school cry becomes. After a while the real picture sinks in. It is not hard to link the two.
Oregon has a state wide health plan, food assistance, housing assistance and other social programs that are filled to the gills with non-American citizens. Many of these folks have residency, but not citizenship. Why we think they are entitled to the help is beyond me. Somebody here illegally deserves exactly nothing! That is what Americans get. That is what our citizenship status is supposed to be about! If they can get it just for being here, then what do we have exactly? (Jack.)
If we were to ask for proof of citizenship before rendering public aid, the burden my state currently is facing would drop in a big way. Do that across the country and suddenly things would look a lot different. Most state governments would find themselves flush with cash. Enough to put these dollars into tax incentives for business, education assistance (for citizens), and many other economy building activities.
Taking care of these folks costs us an awful lot of money the current economy does not allow for. How willing, to work here, do you believe these folks would be if they had to pay taxes and qualify for services as the rest of us do? Given the high tax rate and their low wage, I would wager the whole thing would not be worth it for either party.
Don't tell me illegal people consuming goods and services for next to nothing help both countries. Vicente Fox is happy as hell to keep these folks out of the country. Sure Mexico benefits, at the working middle classes expense.
GW knows damn well that a condition of citizenship would sharply reduce the incentives, for both parties --worker and employer, currently keeping this whole mess running. You think both countries benefit from that? Some businesses in our country do benefit, again at the expense of the working middle class.
Myth my ass! I know people on the take when I see it.
I can't say I blame them, however. They know our nation currently turns a blind eye toward this for political and business reasons. Given their position in live, I would do the same.
Again, consider the nature and value of American citizenship. If somebody can just show up here, get a drivers license, place to live, subscription to the food, housing, and health plan subsidies and vote, what exactly do you have that they don't?
Higher taxes and devalued jobs to compete for -nice huh?
I honestly don't think everyone is going to be simply unemployed. I do believe many folks will be devalued. Hope I am not going to be one of them.
Leverage is a good way to put things. Anytime there is a trend of sorts, somebody benefits, it is just a matter of who and what skills / attributes they have.
You have read my guesses, any of your own to share?
been thinking about this lately. (I am still employed, but my company is having a pretty rough time right now.)
We are going to see more jobs. If Bush gets his way, most of them are going to be in competition with 'undocumented' (Ahem..), I mean ILLEGAL workers. So, we all know those are not going to pay well. Lots of people are going to be devalued for sure.
Jobs that involve people skills are going to become more important. Somebody needs to manage the teams, make deals, and other things. I have been seeing another trend along these lines as well.
Working professionals are forming groups to cut overall costs. So far I see this happening with law, accounting, taxes and other similar traditional services, but maybe technically oriented groups have a chance doing this as well.
Having your own in-house technical people may be too expensive, but buying some quality time locally, sans language and distance issues might be worth a small price premium. Personally, I hope this is an area that Open Source can begin to play a little harder.
I can't help but wonder what effect the growing license fees companies, like Microsoft, ask each year have on the job market. There are a lot of dollars going to one place that used to go elsewhere.
With Open Source working as it should and some greater degree of acceptance, perhaps some of this money will be distributed more evenly. Companies could choose to keep minimal staff and pay high license fees for one size fits all software, or...
They can choose to employ some more staff and combine that with services from a number of competing firms to solve their problems. The greater number of potential solutions might yield competetive advantages as well depending on who is involved.
If this sort of thing begins to really happen, polishing up those people skills might be the way to go. Your technical background will be valuable for advising execs on critical decisions and evaluating potential partners.
I have been getting some experience doing this on the side for a little while now. Once the execs learn there is a cheaper way, they need people to facillitate getting it done for them. Being able to work hands on, in a pinch, helps as well. I sort of ended up doing this for a couple of people I met when I began networking a couple years ago. (fear drives a geek to do strange things, I know!)
Thinking along these lines seems better than a long job search in any case. So, here it is, for what it is worth.
Anyone doing anything similar? Have any luck? Suggestions? I just might need them soon!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I do. I am a very outspoken advocate for OSS. I use it all the time. It makes good sense for all the reasons we know.
The picture I just painted is the very truth heard from inside engineering software firms over the last 3 years.
I am not sure the picture is that bleak for all markets, but it sure is for engineering software.
Good call on the ease of use thing. Analysis is one area where people seem to understand the value proposition presented by powerful software.
Too bad more MCAD users don't understand those very same things.
for something else.
It does not run on any UNIX. They leverage the MFC heavy throughout the program. Early on, their business model was all about packaging technology, not rolling their own. Solidworks makes use of the parasolid kernel, D-cubed constraint engine, and many of the win32 application development features; such as, OLE, visual basic for applications. Their API is exposed the typical Microsoft way.
The package actually requires Microsoft Office to achieve full functionality in many areas. Excel is used for family part tables and such. BTW, this sucks because you end up with a bunch of data linked via OLE. Shaky long-term proposition given the rapid changes that have happened over the last 5 years or so.
Bringing old models up on newer version of both SW and Office often fails...
I am going to start tinkering with that. I have access to a number of packages as well.
Architectural work is significantly different from MCAD however. I realize you can use MCAD packages, often to great advantage, for this line of work, but the reverse is not true at all.
MCAD is often complex at the part level. The parametric trend, made popular by PTC, involves a high degree of automation for part, drawing and assembly creation. The level of detail required for project output is significantly different.
In my area of the company, MCAD people are a very picky bunch. Just small changes in the formatting of something causes a lot of grief. Many of them have built libraries of parametric parts they leverage to create derivative designs more quickly.
I have not seen anything running on the Mac that can approach the level of parametric design possible on PC or UNIX programs. Sad too, because the Mac is a damn good machine for this these days.
You can get it today. It is called "Wildfire". Honestly, PTC has one of the best approaches to their software development out there. They are cross-platform in a way that most other systems are not. Good for Linux.
The bad news? PTC has been hit hard these days. They spent the better part of the early 90s selling expensive software through an aggressive sales channel that has managed to piss off just about everyone who might ever be interested in their software.
Their need for high yearly costs, and constant pressure to upsell software features has made a negative impression overall regarding business with PTC.
Worse, they are in the middle of updating their (old, but fast and functional) user interface to look more like the win32 packages many people use today.
The ease of use arguement is more powerful than it should be in MCAD circles. (Again in the States at least.) Somehow, people seem to expect to do complex things easily. Putting a nice braindead GUI on top of powerful software seems to make people think they are getting something more for their money.
It is scary how much this wasted effort looks like the same command line vs GUI discussions seen here all the time.
The best approach has always been a nice mix of both. You want to make easy things easy, but continue to make impossible things possible.
This latest effort by PTC to blend in with the win32 way of doing things, has slowed down an otherwise fast and capable program. Most users have tried the upgrade and went back to a prior release.
Take a hard look at PTCs quartely numbers. Traditionally, they depend on upgrade and yearly contract revenue for a large percentage of their business. (Almost all the bigger MCAD companies do this.) Creative accounting changes upgrades into new license revenue, but if you look closely, you will find they are getting very few new customers.
They spend much of their time upselling the ones they have. Over the years, these things have come to a head. Today, they have sold most folks as much of their software as they want. The new version does not appeal to a large percentage of their customer base. Their reputation for doing hardnosed business keeps that same version from growing marketshare for them.
PTC is likely fucked.
I did run the Linux version. It worked the same as both win32 and commercial UNIX versions did. You won't ever see them demo it though. Every last one of their sales people runs their software on a win32 laptop. Customers have to ask for the Linux version. PTC has enough sales problems without having to also address OS issues in addition to their own.
What we need is ports from other vendors. As much as I dislike SolidWorks, they would be a great choice. However, they are literally married to Microsoft. Won't happen anytime soon. Perhaps other packages might.
It is really a chicken an egg thing, as my first post indicated. Nobody sees Linux and MCAD demonstrated, marketed, or pushed as a value solution, even though price is a clear consideration these days. Worse, the companies I have spoken to (and I have personally talked with product managers for quite a few) see support as a major barrier along with the cost of porting.
They claim they do not see customer demand because all they see is lots of win32 sales numbers and sharply reduced UNIX sales numbers. They don't really grok OSS at all.
They see it as a cheap UNIX that runs on a PC. They see the number of versions and wonder what to write to. They see the lack of control over what the user can and cannot do as a support liability.
All of these things are really a non issue, if they would just port to RH, for example, those of us wanting to do our own thing would be free to do so. (They don't understand that.)
As much as I want this to happen, there are major issues to be worked out at the product manager and marketing levels, of these MCAD vendors, before anything realistic is going to ha
I run I-deas on SGI IRIX, most of the time. That particular MCAD package really runs well in that configuration.
For MCAD, the primary things necessary for good performance these days is simply CPU and RAM. Most inexpensive graphics sub-systems will do what people need.
Too many people know this. Once you realize what MCAD really needs, the price difference between a PC and Sun workstations is significant when a number of users is a part of the equation.
This next bit is specific to I-deas, but could work for other packages as well.
I-deas has its own data manager built into the system. All users check-in, check-out data from a central data repository that is isolated from the users via UNIX suid function. (On win32, this is broken and users can directly see the files.)
Hosting a package like this on a multi-CPU machine can yield costs approaching PC prices, with some added advantages:
- centralized administration. Everything is on one box, data + code.
- high thoughtput between CAD and the Data Manager because everyting is on local disks. No network issues to deal with.
I setup a couple of these using SGI systems for the CAD, and X window software on the local PC machines. Used Samba to share home directories, so users can easily get output into their Microsoft stuff.
The whole thing works pretty well actually. Funny calling the support line though. The company has actually gotten so win32-centric they often get confused when I explain the setup. The assumption is one, user, one machine, one display. Anything else gets painful.
Anyway, the setup has one other nice attribute for those wanting to provide controlled access to data without actually letting the user have full interaction with said data.
UNIX can do this with the X window system and SUID. User runs the application, from whatever system they want, including Linux. The application then accesses data they do not have direct permission to access themselves. User can do only what the application lets them do. Pretty sweet actually, once you consider the mess the current Office 2003 DRM scheme is turning out to be.
One other advantage of this setup is that it does provide for a Linux desktop without having to port the application. To date, many people have been interested, Microsoft Office gets in the way of that... Maybe in time.
It is sad to see a user with a powerful machine waiting on a CAD application hogging a single user OS and display. Many users, who started using CAD on UNIX, know what they are missing. These days, in the States anyway, they have no idea. Waiting on the computer, or having to futz with it often is seen as the norm.
Morons.
new CAD.
Doing this for older 2D systems seems almost doable. We might actually get somewhere with surface modelers and some solids as well.
Problem is in all the kernel tweaking and geometry case handling the existing programs have developed.
It is not easy to program for all the different geometry cases people expect programs to handle these days. One could get a pretty good kernel, but it would have to be licensed. Once that is done, building constraint engines for parametrics is damn tough.
The number of man years invested in current CAD programs is not an easy thing to match. I would *love* to see a realistic MCAD program that is GPL or licensed reasonably, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
Ports would be a better idea for development reasons, plus people have lots of legacy data to deal with. If they must maintain their old system, it will likely be done on win32.
As long as that is the case, moving to Linux is going to be a tough sell.
The good news is that most of the better backend PDM packages, will run on Linux, or at least on a UNIX. Getting EDS, Dassaut (sp?) to port would be a big start. Getting one of the popular midrange systems ported would be even better.
If we can get that, the back-end integration (hope I got that one right!) is an easier task.
It is all one 32 bit mess; thus, win32.
If the various versions could actually be differentiated in some realistic way, I might actually consider using a more precise nomenclature.
Truth is, it all sucks and I would rather not give more brand recognition than strictly needed for conversation.
So, win32 it is.
Get a life, an account, and maybe I might consider the issue a bit further.
As far as I am concerned, you are a pimply faced, trailer trash, cocksucker, geek wannabe with no life. Anonymous no fucking backbone limpdick coward, grow the fuck up and get a life.
I place the blame squarely on spell check and autocomplete, both of which are missing on /.
Oh well, on a forum like this, content is king.
BTW, the GW thing is low indeed. I want *no* association with that guy at all.
states at least.
I know plenty of folks in Europe that run MCAD on various UNIX platforms.
In the last three years, I have not gained a single new UNIX customer. Every last one of them has been win32.
Over here the PDM move really is being pushed hard. Companies want to get hold of the product design process and manage all of it. Intergration is seen as a way to pack more tasks into an engineers day, along with the increased ability to leverage that data throughout the enterprise.
Actually, I agree with these things in principle, but win32 is the platform being pushed hard by the MCAD companies. In the last 5 years, the market has gone from features to price.
Exising UNIX customers are all planning win32 migrations, though some of their timelines are a few years off yet.
Here in America, every new product demonstration you see is on a win32 platform. Many pre-sales folks have forgotten UNIX even is an option. Nobody will mention it, unless the customer requests it.
most of will be really old, and not give a shit!
It needs to happen much faster than that!
Win32 is getting a pretty nice grip on this market. Almost all of the MCAD (mechanical CAD) companies offer win32 versions of their software.
Smaller, niche CAD players, do offer both Linux and Mac versions. PTC, one of the bigger players (for a while longer at least) does Linux today, with Mac coming.
The problem is the number of users running strong win32 based programs. (AutoCAD, Solid Edge, Solid Works) While none of these packages offer the level of capability the bigger packages do, their numbers are creating a significant network effect. Very few mechanical engineering departments, found in small to mid-sized enterprises, run anything other than win32 systems. The big players still make good use of UNIX, with Linux being rare at this point and OS X being more rare or non-existant at best.
These systems are increasingly being tied to back-end PDM (product data management systems) that aim to drive the product knowledge throughout the company. The reasons for doing this are sound, but the platform in the lead right now is win32. Given the strong intergration between win32 and office, additional intergration involving engineering and CRM software, Microsoft is getting hold of manufacturing and product design companies in a big way.
Both Linux and OS X are going to have an increasingly hard time cracking this nut. All of the MCAD sales people use win32 running laptops. Older UNIX products are being ported and adapted to run win32.
Many folks in this market do not even have Linux on their radar yet.
Given this is my area of expertise, it is a depressing story really. Linux and OSS in general are a great story that almost never gets told in this space.
Microsoft has been growing at the expense of commercial UNIX vendors, in this space for the last 8 years or so, almost unchecked. This is an area that Linux is ready for in many ways, due to its technical nature. The ECAD people along with the movie studios demonstrate this clearly.
I'm afraid, without ports to Linux from the big players, the mechanical engineering and product design markets are going to be win32 for a long time to come yet. Even with the ports, the mid-range packages (having the majority of users) are win32 only at this point, because they leverage Microsoft tools at almost every level of the software.
I fear the home software will come first. Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am.
you only have to purchase a monitor once.
:)
I have a couple of pretty decent ones right now that have lived through a few systems.
Here is another bizzarre thought. Take that money and invest in a plasma that can handle computer inputs. --Very nice gaming experience! Though not portable.
I suppose for some people, this makes good sense. It is an attractive bit of tech, but for me it is just not that important. I do travel and value a nice laptop, but just don't value it that much.
Now, if the company would chip in...
though I seriously wish I could. As an alternative, I would be very interested in a portable computer that could make use of batteries.
I do agree that building your own machine is not always cheaper, but getting exactly what you want is worth a price premium to me, because I am picky.
Also, I want to support people that support Open software and hardware. Buying my own bits, or working with a base system from somebody I want to support, helps me do this.
I would rather not give Dell any of my money. Better it go locally to somebody who needs it. This BTW is one of the primary reasons I like OSS. --It gives the little guy a chance. And with the little guy, I can call somebody on the phone with a reasonable expectation that they will remember my name.
amount of money for the Laptop, and if I did, it would not be for gaming.
Better to get a reasonable laptop, and build a nice game machine with the rest of the dollars.
money.
Part of the joy in high-end PC's (and that is an oxymoron for me) is building them.
If I have that kind of money to blow, then its going to be a trip to FRY's hands down.
here is my "why":
I read the books first, then heard the radio series.
For me, the appeal is in the wit. Adams can poke fun at the way things work, or could work, like no other.
Like the idea that we are decendants from all the ancillary people another race decided they didn't want. These folks sent all of their useless, unproductive people, receptionists, phone polishers and such and sent them on an automated one way journey to someplace else. When they arrived, their presense killed off the real humans who happened to just be getting started learning the basics of grunting.
The idea that our past could be something like this is unusually hard to imagine. Expressing it is highly creative. Most of the story is like that. It is just not something you see every day. In fact, it is not something we should have seen at all really.
The fact that we did is a gift, plain and simple.
The goofy names and phrases played off of the sound of things too.
Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, hoopy, Zaphod Beeblebrox... --Vogons. BTW, have you ever read of a fictional race starting with a V that people liked? Vogons just sound bad, and of course they are in the book. Adams had a sense for that that flows throughout the story. Ever read books that had good stories, but the names and places were just "off"?
Nobody wants to like the Vogons. Why? Because they are Vogons dammit! Don't you know anything? Most people would like a dinner at Milliways. Why? Because it sounds good. What else would you call the Resturant at the End of the Universe?
Seriously, I am not trying to pretend to be funny, but am really trying to make a point. The play on words often found in these stories makes immediate sense while poking fun at our preconcieved notions of things. (Spelling czars relax --it's late.)
I get the distinct feeling Adams had a feel for the written word that most of us really don't grok well enough to create like he does. Reading the books makes immediate sense, but the mindset that would produce such a work is hard to imagine.
Totally out of the box would likely be a better way of saying this.
The scale of things:
Man, the book covers immense stretches of time and distance like they are nothing. {Which they are really, but that is not my point.} You get a twisted tongue 'n cheek look at the history of mankind, a trip to the end of the universe and all of the places in between.
My little comment in brackets is typical of things you will read as well. One moment you are in the story, another you are being told something subtle that should be obvious, but really isn't until you read it. The result is often funny and thought provoking at the same time. (Not that my example is anything like that, but I had to try.)
Crazy ideas like rock concerts with entire planets used for sound... Or Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. (They turn black at the first sign of danger!)
I have never read anything like it since. Probably the only way I can express this is to say that every other story I have read can be compared to other stories. You just can't do that with the Hitchhikers Guide. It is really different. Nobody has ever said Douglas Adams stories are like _______.
Now, having written this, I feel like a total lamer. I suppose that is what I get for trying to say "why", but what the hell, you asked.
Just read the books. Take it slowly at first and let your mind wander. You will be surprised at where it might go. In a twisted sort of way, you will be better for the experience.
You are right about the fill rate. The O2 has just enough to be able to make good use of its graphics engine. The 320 was a bit better.
Fill rates aside, these machines both have big texture attributes hard to match today with any video card. Having an 800Mb image local to, even a dated graphics engine, makes quite a difference in frame rate.
SGI has a demo where the image is mapped to a plane in OpenGL. Moving scaling, filtering happens realtime in hardware. You can move, rotate, scale very large images in real time with very little effort.
This also allows the machine to overlay video onto surfaces and manupulate them in real time as well. Clearly a niche capability, but one not well matched by the PC design we see today, AGP 8x or not.
The O2 machine is still being used for various aspects of the video production process. The specific attributes that hardware has makes it well suited to the task today because they are I/O bound graphics tasks. Not much compute required.
Too bad the fill rate was not higher though. There are things the chipset can do, that are limited by the low fillrates...
I like the CD flap too. On the O2, I like the shape. It's a cool machine to have around.
Sure, lots of shops are running those two OSes. The bigger studios are leveraging Linux as hard as they can. They are not going to move.
Smaller operations do not see the economy of scale, so win32 / Mac makes perfect sense. Alias knows this, which is exactly why there are three ports of Maya.
They should have kept going.
The O2 design is good even today. For texture related tasks, the machine still performs. I own one.
Also own a 320 series machine. To say the O2 would blow the 320 series machine away is not correct. Price / performance on the 320 machines was better than just about every other PC of the time.
At the time the 320 series machines were released, lots of folks had the same thoughts you did regarding SGI and profit margins. Many of them wanted to continue with SGI, the 320 let them do this.
Funny thing about those machines. Sold lots of them. Every last customer wanted more when the line was retired. None of them came back. Most of them were in use until just a year or so ago.
Had they been able to put Linux on those machines, things would be different today. Most of the MIPS crowd thought they were a joke. Understandable given the level of engineering and performance they are used to seeing.
Lots of other people clearly saw value in the machines. People came into the building to run the machines and often bought them. The same was not true for O2 and Octane.
I thought the same thing when I saw lost in space. Also hated the cheezy use of the Intel Inside audio logo...
Water under the bridge now, I guess...
will stay.
The big studios want it too much. Using Maya on OS X is as sweet, or sweeter than either win32 or Linux, but I think Linux will scale farther for back end tasks, at a lower cost, than OS X ever will.
Scaling is one of the top drivers for the big boys in this game. Linux has both win32 and OS X beat in the price / performance area cold.
Besides a lot of what the studios want is custom. SGI used to offer this under NDA, but it cost a lot. With Linux, they can do it far cheaper, on their time schedule, and share the bits that benefit everyone without having to repurchase and pay support on their own tech!
about $0.38 per share. Almost took out a loan. Friend talked me out of it. Rose to nearly $4.00 a short while later..
I would be inclined to buy some anyway today. Bishop has a keen eye on SGIs core market:
Technical computing
IRIX is very good for this, MIPS is holding it back though. Their efforts on Linux will pay off, in my opinion. Linux is reaching the point where it will be possible to build an IRIX like system. Heck, you can today --it is only going to get easier.
SGI is one of the few companies to make a deal with Microsoft while still around to tell about it. (Legal won't, but many SGI folks will, if you catch them in the right mood.)
If that deal hadn't been the death of their 320 / 540 series machines, we would have great Linux technical workstations right now. I am not saying you cannot get a nice Linux workstation, but the SGI plan combined their engineering with custom Linux tweaks that would have made for nice boxes.
320/540 machines could support up to about 800Mb texture memory in a UMA design. Heavy texture models perform best in this configuration, because of the low latency bandwidth it provides to the graphics sub-system.
The Linux drivers were shown at Siggraph '99, I think. Microsoft and SGI had a little tiff shortly after that. Farenheit project --it seemed at the time, win32 was poised to take over that market since it had already made quite a dent. Gates knew about all the UNIX code that had to be rewritten. Direct X got good, thanks to SGI, but not good enough to justify all that work porting to a closed, hard to administer, expensive to cluster system with little ability to script or perform multi-user.
SGI legal scuttled the Linux drivers over win32 contract terms involving the ARC boot loader. It seems Microsoft has an interest in this that prevented SGI from providing machines with choices other than win32, or something like that. (Could never get the entire story.)
The series was canned. Generic PC machines running tweaked nVidia hardware replaced them to keep existing customers trying to leverage Linux happy. Their hardware had considerable advantages over the general purpose PC, so it only made sense for SGI to move away from the whole thing.
Today we see the Altix series machines along with high end SGI hardware on the desktop. The Altix, and high-end IRIX hardware is well positioned, while IRIX struggles at the workstation level. Linux is capturing applications far better than IRIX ever did.
(Which shows just how hard they got fucked over the Microsoft deal.)
Recovering from that and other blunders has taken a while. The new products are hitting their targets nicely. It is tough for them now, being late in the game. An SGI Linux workstation likely will not happen right away because of this. (We would have had them in '01, otherwise.)
SGI systems engineering is top notch, I hope they continue to improve and continue to develop their high bandwidth, single image designs. (They are the best, if you want a single OS image instead of a cluster.)
As for Alias, the organization beats to a different drum. The Maya side of things has been handled well. Can't say the same for their Studio product. Still high priced and no Linux --yet.
Maya is a hit in the entertainment business for obvious reasons. Their other product, Studio struggles in a niche status. Good for high end product design and styling, but poor at more mainstream applications. Traditional MCAD packages continue to consume many new potential Studio sales, while also chipping away at the established base of users.
I would not count the Linux version of Maya out. Alias knows better than that. There is no way the Studios are going to be pried back to win32. Going down that road proved expensive and problematic. Linux is the perfect fit. Alias would not be where they are today without having done that port.
OSS lets them (the studios) keep control of their tools an
Thought about our posts for a bit and calmed down...
Like people? I do as well. People start out being good people and grow either direction from there. This means most of the illegal people here are decent folks. (I see this in my neck of the woods.)
You make a point I happen to share. We can use more citizens. Make them learn some American history and what it stands for. Then they have a fair shot at contributing just like everyone else does. You are dead on regarding the guys in the boats. If we spend a little money setting the right expectations and make citizens out of them, they will likely do just as you say; namely, appreciate the country.
With regard to Oregons problems, you are not being presumptuous at all. Our duly elected leaders are currently handing things out to just about anyone that happens to be here long enough to figure that out. Given the recent moves the Govenator has just made (this is just simple humor --a play on the movies, I don't yet have a stand on how Arnold is doing because it is too soon, so don't take me to task on that just yet...) Oregon is going to get worse still as we continue to maintain our friendly environment toward illegal residents.
They (our current leaders) are the problem, not the illegals. My earlier rant did not clarify that particular aspect of things anywhere near as well as it should. You called me on it fair and square. -Good call. Clearly I have built up some sensitivity and anger toward this issue. Your post brought some of that out. I am sorry about that, marked you a foe and everything. --First one. (Took it back.)
I see a lot of these folks have moved in over the years. Know what? Many of them are decent folks, as I mentioned earlier, that deserve a break. I feel for them, but let me make my position clear. I want to help fellow Americans.
What I don't want to see is people confusing the issue as I thought you did. Open Immigration means getting more citizens in this country, it does not mean let the gates open and we all pay, status be dammed.
I am not for that at all, no matter how harsh it may be. The line has to be drawn somewhere and for me that line clearly is citizenship. Have it? Happen to be down on your luck? Go ahead and get what the nation can provide. Who knows, I might be in the same spot in the future. No harm in that. Somebody can take up the slack for a while, that is how it supposed to work.
Don't have it? Leave, plain and simple. We need to find ways to help people be legal and build from there. Anything else runs counter to how the nation was built and has too many bad side effects. Like crime. Illegal people are almost untouchable in the courts. Most minor crimes like property crime result in a citation and a demand for court appearance. They can't do anything else because deporting them costs too much and Vicente doesn't want 'em back anyway. So they walk over and over again. If we had legal people here, things would be different. (Just one example, there are many others.)
That does leave me in a hard position with regard to simple human compassion, but hey I can defend that with a willingness to help people gain their citizenship. I realize no one entity can save the world, so the next best thing is to take good care of the rank and file while building the organization as best we can. Doing some good along the way is a bonus. That is why nations have some value. Belonging to a good one that demonstrates these values is worth working and fighting for. Not so sure the USA is really shining in that area right now, given recent short-term events, but you know what I mean by this. A nation running well, can likely afford to earn a little good karma through aid programs and such. (I support all of these given our own house is in reasonable order. Today it isn't.)
Too often, I see these two issues (open borders and immigration) mixed together in a way that basically says "help the poor people, they need it." Again, I am f
I am sorry, but I am going to totally blame immigrants for a lot of things. There are two kinds of these, legal and illegal.
The legal kind are good. They become citizens and pay taxes and such. Nothing wrong with this, it is a good thing that needs to continue.
The illegal ones are a big drain on our economy right now. I live in Oregon where the State is constantly asking for more taxes on top of already very high tax rates. The official dogma we hear is the "starving schools". Same crap I have heard all of my life here in Oregon. The more the illegal population rises, the sharper the school cry becomes. After a while the real picture sinks in. It is not hard to link the two.
Oregon has a state wide health plan, food assistance, housing assistance and other social programs that are filled to the gills with non-American citizens. Many of these folks have residency, but not citizenship. Why we think they are entitled to the help is beyond me. Somebody here illegally deserves exactly nothing! That is what Americans get. That is what our citizenship status is supposed to be about! If they can get it just for being here, then what do we have exactly? (Jack.)
If we were to ask for proof of citizenship before rendering public aid, the burden my state currently is facing would drop in a big way. Do that across the country and suddenly things would look a lot different. Most state governments would find themselves flush with cash. Enough to put these dollars into tax incentives for business, education assistance (for citizens), and many other economy building activities.
Taking care of these folks costs us an awful lot of money the current economy does not allow for.
How willing, to work here, do you believe these folks would be if they had to pay taxes and qualify for services as the rest of us do? Given the high tax rate and their low wage, I would wager the whole thing would not be worth it for either party.
Don't tell me illegal people consuming goods and services for next to nothing help both countries. Vicente Fox is happy as hell to keep these folks out of the country. Sure Mexico benefits, at the working middle classes expense.
GW knows damn well that a condition of citizenship would sharply reduce the incentives, for both parties --worker and employer, currently keeping this whole mess running. You think both countries benefit from that? Some businesses in our country do benefit, again at the expense of the working middle class.
Myth my ass! I know people on the take when I see it.
I can't say I blame them, however. They know our nation currently turns a blind eye toward this for political and business reasons. Given their position in live, I would do the same.
Again, consider the nature and value of American citizenship. If somebody can just show up here, get a drivers license, place to live, subscription to the food, housing, and health plan subsidies and vote, what exactly do you have that they don't?
Higher taxes and devalued jobs to compete for -nice huh?
following.
I honestly don't think everyone is going to be simply unemployed. I do believe many folks will be devalued. Hope I am not going to be one of them.
Leverage is a good way to put things. Anytime there is a trend of sorts, somebody benefits, it is just a matter of who and what skills / attributes they have.
You have read my guesses, any of your own to share?
been thinking about this lately. (I am still employed, but my company is having a pretty rough time right now.)
We are going to see more jobs. If Bush gets his way, most of them are going to be in competition with 'undocumented' (Ahem..), I mean ILLEGAL workers. So, we all know those are not going to pay well. Lots of people are going to be devalued for sure.
Jobs that involve people skills are going to become more important. Somebody needs to manage the teams, make deals, and other things. I have been seeing another trend along these lines as well.
Working professionals are forming groups to cut overall costs. So far I see this happening with law, accounting, taxes and other similar traditional services, but maybe technically oriented groups have a chance doing this as well.
Having your own in-house technical people may be too expensive, but buying some quality time locally, sans language and distance issues might be worth a small price premium. Personally, I hope this is an area that Open Source can begin to play a little harder.
I can't help but wonder what effect the growing license fees companies, like Microsoft, ask each year have on the job market. There are a lot of dollars going to one place that used to go elsewhere.
With Open Source working as it should and some greater degree of acceptance, perhaps some of this money will be distributed more evenly. Companies could choose to keep minimal staff and pay high license fees for one size fits all software, or...
They can choose to employ some more staff and combine that with services from a number of competing firms to solve their problems. The greater number of potential solutions might yield competetive advantages as well depending on who is involved.
If this sort of thing begins to really happen, polishing up those people skills might be the way to go. Your technical background will be valuable for advising execs on critical decisions and evaluating potential partners.
I have been getting some experience doing this on the side for a little while now. Once the execs learn there is a cheaper way, they need people to facillitate getting it done for them. Being able to work hands on, in a pinch, helps as well. I sort of ended up doing this for a couple of people I met when I began networking a couple years ago. (fear drives a geek to do strange things, I know!)
Thinking along these lines seems better than a long job search in any case. So, here it is, for what it is worth.
Anyone doing anything similar? Have any luck? Suggestions? I just might need them soon!