Over and over I hear this from people who’ve clearly never managed a business environment where you have entrenched processes.
Or processes dependent upon specific software that has no Linux counterpart (CAD).
Even if an org could switch desktops to Linux, there’s a massive cost just in the switching, then making sure it all works, then the lost production as employees figure out new ways to do things they’ve done for years.
Then what happens when you take on a new client or new vendor who only works with “this thing” that only works through windows? Now you have to spend time and money validating whatever solution you develop, instead of just using “the thing” which has already been validated through years of use by that ient/vendor and their clients/vendors.
Or when you’re dealing with regulatory processes that have been addressed througjout your industry with a specific set of Windows tools, and those tools have been approved/validated by the regulatory agency or insurance agencies - and now you need to get the same process validated under Linux with Linux tools, hoping the regulators or insurers won’t just say “nope, not interested”.
BTDT, with alternate Windows tooling, and just got shut down because existing tools were available. “Why would you want to use a different tool when X process/tooling exists?”
It’s just not realistic, even for many small orgs.
Switching is an investment in the business, not a cost. If you’re already locked into proprietary software and you can’t problem solve your way out of it, is it really your business at that point or are you a victim of racketeering? If the business can’t adapt, one way or another it will fail eventually in any case. Not switching means you’re giving more and more away and getting less and less in return. That also is not sustainable.
If you can still do the job your client is paying you for, they can be negotiated with on the terms of how that job gets done and what tools are used for it. That’s what contracts are for.
As far as what people know how to use, they weren’t born with CAD knowledge and things got done before CAD was a thing. New tools can be created, adopted or repurposed. Employees can be trained again, even if they grumble about it.
Regulators and insurance is a sticking point for sure, but they will follow if these tools become more ubiquitous or people start calling their representatives. Those businesses will lag behind, but those businesses are not the majority of businesses.
Change is inevitable and doing something the same way as it’s always been done eventually becomes a major liability.
I love/use FreeCAD but let’s not kid ourselves. It’s nowhere near as capable or usable for serious engineering projects as the big name commercial CAD suites. It’s starting to get there, but it has a very long way to go.
Sure but I highly disagre with you. I’ve been an engineer for 45 years. At least 20 of those years we did not have CAD and if FreeCAD had shown up, we would have jumped on it. Would you want to learn how to use an electric pencil eraser?
A true engineer doesn’t blame his or her tools. It’s people without experience who do.
Right, but it’s the difference between using a beat up old hand saw and hammer vs selection of high end power tools to build a house. Either will get the job done, but one is significantly faster and less effort. There are also things that aren’t feasible using just hand tools.
Solidworks has insane simulation capabilities. AutoCAD has extensive, mature, specialized toolsets. Fusion 360’s ease of use is unmatched and its built in CAM tools are phenomenal.
The above are expensive, mature, heavily used, commercial products being maintained by large teams of professionals with regular hours and a paycheck. FreeCAD (which again: I love) is made/maintained by a small team of volunteers in their free time.
I’ve used AutoCAD, Fusion 360, Rhinoceros 3D, and currently use FreeCAD. I often have to use weird workarounds to get the geometry I want in FreeCAD – particularly to maintain absolute and relative dimensions on parts I want to scale. The dimension reference system is clunky, the toolset is limited, and the simulation capabilities are … well, they’re getting there.
I put up with it because I’m a FOSS fanatic and I’m not designing fighter jets or spacecraft. Also … I’m cheap.
Right.
Over and over I hear this from people who’ve clearly never managed a business environment where you have entrenched processes.
Or processes dependent upon specific software that has no Linux counterpart (CAD).
Even if an org could switch desktops to Linux, there’s a massive cost just in the switching, then making sure it all works, then the lost production as employees figure out new ways to do things they’ve done for years.
Then what happens when you take on a new client or new vendor who only works with “this thing” that only works through windows? Now you have to spend time and money validating whatever solution you develop, instead of just using “the thing” which has already been validated through years of use by that ient/vendor and their clients/vendors.
Or when you’re dealing with regulatory processes that have been addressed througjout your industry with a specific set of Windows tools, and those tools have been approved/validated by the regulatory agency or insurance agencies - and now you need to get the same process validated under Linux with Linux tools, hoping the regulators or insurers won’t just say “nope, not interested”.
BTDT, with alternate Windows tooling, and just got shut down because existing tools were available. “Why would you want to use a different tool when X process/tooling exists?”
It’s just not realistic, even for many small orgs.
Switching is an investment in the business, not a cost. If you’re already locked into proprietary software and you can’t problem solve your way out of it, is it really your business at that point or are you a victim of racketeering? If the business can’t adapt, one way or another it will fail eventually in any case. Not switching means you’re giving more and more away and getting less and less in return. That also is not sustainable.
If you can still do the job your client is paying you for, they can be negotiated with on the terms of how that job gets done and what tools are used for it. That’s what contracts are for.
As far as what people know how to use, they weren’t born with CAD knowledge and things got done before CAD was a thing. New tools can be created, adopted or repurposed. Employees can be trained again, even if they grumble about it.
Regulators and insurance is a sticking point for sure, but they will follow if these tools become more ubiquitous or people start calling their representatives. Those businesses will lag behind, but those businesses are not the majority of businesses.
Change is inevitable and doing something the same way as it’s always been done eventually becomes a major liability.
FreeCAD for CAD, PrePoMax, openfoam and calculix for FEA.
I wouldn’t worry much, AI will free you from your CAD burden soon probably.
I love/use FreeCAD but let’s not kid ourselves. It’s nowhere near as capable or usable for serious engineering projects as the big name commercial CAD suites. It’s starting to get there, but it has a very long way to go.
Blender, on the other hand …
Sure but I highly disagre with you. I’ve been an engineer for 45 years. At least 20 of those years we did not have CAD and if FreeCAD had shown up, we would have jumped on it. Would you want to learn how to use an electric pencil eraser?
A true engineer doesn’t blame his or her tools. It’s people without experience who do.
Right, but it’s the difference between using a beat up old hand saw and hammer vs selection of high end power tools to build a house. Either will get the job done, but one is significantly faster and less effort. There are also things that aren’t feasible using just hand tools.
Solidworks has insane simulation capabilities. AutoCAD has extensive, mature, specialized toolsets. Fusion 360’s ease of use is unmatched and its built in CAM tools are phenomenal.
The above are expensive, mature, heavily used, commercial products being maintained by large teams of professionals with regular hours and a paycheck. FreeCAD (which again: I love) is made/maintained by a small team of volunteers in their free time.
I’ve used AutoCAD, Fusion 360, Rhinoceros 3D, and currently use FreeCAD. I often have to use weird workarounds to get the geometry I want in FreeCAD – particularly to maintain absolute and relative dimensions on parts I want to scale. The dimension reference system is clunky, the toolset is limited, and the simulation capabilities are … well, they’re getting there.
I put up with it because I’m a FOSS fanatic and I’m not designing fighter jets or spacecraft. Also … I’m cheap.