Nate Duehr wrote: > Damon Chesser wrote: > > This is the first time I have to disagree with you S. Keeling. > > Users of CAD (espe. AutoCad) realy have to use windose. No maker > > of professional CAD is porting to linux. I know a shop here that > > builds buildings and they all use Autocad. Their SysAdmin has set > > up a RH server, but all workstations are win. There simply is no > > choice in the matter, not yet. > I could have sworn VariCAD had a native Linux port? Not sure. Yep, > see below. varicad is a joke for serious work... speak to an expert, and they will tell you the same thing. even autocad is described as "too simplistic" by a few mechanical engineers i know, and architects (REAL architects, not "extension to the back room" architects) need something a lot more powerful. > A quick Google turned up these: > www.linuxcad.com > www.varicad.com > www.cadsoft.de > www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html > www.ac3d.org > www.cycas.de > www.welcomehome.org/senecass/software/dome46.tar.gz these projects, although noteworthy and of good cause, are again like i said, a complete joke when it comes to professional usage in most branches of engineering or architecture. its like comparing `ed` to M$ word :-/ > There are *always* alternatives. if by "alternative", you mean "a program that _claims_ to do the same _basic_ functionality", then yes. trust me, there are high-end programs for particular disciplines which simply DO NOT have a replacement in the UNIX world. and even if a tool did exist, we are talking about tools which are so complex, you really do need to take a full course and have experience using them: so the user really has to decide whether it is worth their while to switch, bearing in mind that their career and earnings rest on that decision. to prove my point, i have actually tried this "there are replacement in GNU/Linux" approach with an engineer, to be told how feeble varicad and co really are for doing real work (after he tried them). you cannot even use varicad to do everything you would need in an undergraduate engineering course in the UK, let alone in the workplace. > Understanding that you may have a lot > invested (a rediculous amount, really -- if you're paying their usual > rates) in AutoCAD makes realizing why you stick with it more > understandable. AutoCAD is ridiculously _cheap_ i can tell you... compare it with some of the more advanced packages on the market (the names of which i could find out for you within a matter of a few days). but, thats not the point: you are correct that there is a lot of investment involved in any high end software. only productive (in the literal sense) offices will be using it... its not a toy, and there is big money involved in the end products. > However, my point here is that Mr. Keeling is frustrated with the > extreme lack of attention to software security in everything Microsoft > > builds. but that is not the original topic... Mr. Keeling said "there is NO excuse that justifies using that crap, and I don't care who you are or why you want to"... which has been successfully disproved by the counterexample: some people need specialist software, which is only available for M$ windoze, so they must use M$ windoze. i am sure there are many more examples than these. if he has an issue with M$, he should take it up with M$; not people who use it (which is still 99% of PC users out there, a few with credentials to embarrass any one of us; they are not all stoopid lusers). now please can we stop this thread and get back to debian related issues? cheers, Sam -- Free High School Science Texts http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/fhsst Sam's Homepages http://fommil.homeunix.org/~samuel http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~samuel
Attachment:
pgprGuqymOVFo.pgp
Description: PGP signature