Whaaa? Whassup?
Sorry I nodded off right about where you started on about what the
point was.
Youre quite right, its a bad thing, and someone really should do
something about it.
Soapboxes are great things to stand on and expound at length about
justice and injustice.
Not so good for those who have to listen.
How about someone asking about piping for a change?
Just a thought.
Cheers
Steve
- In PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bowers <pbowers@...> wrote:
>
> Christopher Wright wrote:
>
> >> <<"A lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court (US District Court
for
> >> the
> >> Western Washington District C07-1189 JLR) that alleges Autodesk,
Inc
> >> maker of the industry standard AutoCAD software and their
attorney
> >> Andrew S. Mackay have devised an illegal scheme to have used
copies of
> >> their software removed from the eBay site using the Digital
Millennium
> >> Copyright Act. Finally someone decided that non-transferable
licenses
> >> must be stopped.">>
>
> > Someone's finally started to realize that it's worthwhile suing
> > software companies. Maybe the next step is some accountability
for
> > bugs and lousy service.
>
> I quote myself from Slashdot below,
> http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=297335&cid=20598921:
>
> <<Autodesk became as big as it is because for many years they
turned a
> blind eye to people copying their software. More "unofficial" users
> playing with AutoCAD meant more marketshare later because CAD tends
to
> be fairly complicated to learn and use effectively. Built-in
familiarity
> with the interface and basic features also helped a lot - "I can
draw
> stuff with AutoCAD, therefore I am a draftsman"-type qualifications.
>
> Some people simply do not need to upgrade to or buy the latest,
greatest
> version of software (unless they are forced to due to license
expiration
> or having to stay compatible with customers).
>
> I seem to recall that Autodesk tried a subscription model at one
time
> but it didn't work out as they liked, as users didn't want to be
caught
> in a "ransom"-type situation whereby they'd be forced to make
payments
> without any guarantees of later software improvements. Engineers
tend to
> be a practical lot.
>
> As with all software, there comes a point when good enough is good
> enough. A lot of new software releases these days (at least in some
> industries) seem to be mostly sizzle and little steak.
>
> I use AutoCAD 2005 daily as a platform for 3rd-party 3D plant
design
> software. It's good enough, and switching to a newer version would
> likely break the way I do things now. Even these days with quite
> powerful computers (ACAD R14 on a 486DX was the first truly useful
> Windows-based AutoCAD, IMO) there are still things that cannot be
done,
> so drawings have to be manually edited. As soon as you manually
edit a
> deliverable you've lost the advantage of automatic extraction of
> detailed fabrication drawings and you end up with a hybrid document
that
> can easily turn into a time bomb (so to speak) in the field.
>
> After all this rambling I guess my point is that ever-increasing
> complexity (and the associated cost, of course) in software can be
more
> trouble than it's worth unless designs can be output directly to a
> machine or robot to build the thing you're imagining. If your work
> involves actual human beings constructing things in an outdoor
> environment, 2D drawings are still needed. Ergo, 2D CAD is often
good
> enough and I don't see why selling obsolete (but still useful),
paid-for
> copies of software should be not permitted. Hell, monitoring sales
could
> be a great indicator of what the market actually wants, rather than
> foisting the next upgrade on everyone.>>
>
Received on Thu Sep 20 06:15:00 2007