2008/6/21 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 21/06/2008, Dotan Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I personally would be satisfied paying thousands of dollars for >> Solidworks and not having access to the source code so long as it runs >> on my OS. > > I think this is rather nearsighted. Although for what I do, > mathematics, it's easier to argue for openness of the software (a > mathematical proof must be available and the method disclosed, > otherwise, what kind of mathematics are we doing?), I also think it > should be important to argue for the opennes of engineering software. > If you buy it, I think you should also be demanding the source code.
I do not care about the source code, but I do care about my data being in a portable format. However, even more than that, I care about interoperating with my colleagues. Right now, they _all_ use Solidworks. I will not hang up my engineering degree and serve falafel until everyone is using open source software. > Unfortunately, it seems that many people in engineering backgrounds, > with whom I frequently have to interact, are used to the idea of > paying thousands of dollars for black boxes, whether it be for > hardware and instrumentation or software. I think this is a recent > practice, but I'm not sure. I have heard it said that in times of yore > before companies realised that copyright laws could be used to > restrict their software, it was standard practice to provide source to > your customers, since the software was just the icing on the cake to > whatever else they had purchased from you. > > This modern tendency to eschew source seems nearsighted because I have > seen this come back to haunt engineers. More than once, I've seen > their black boxes malfunction on them, the only people with the > ability to fix them have left the company or are out of business, and > then they come to us with interesting mathematics of inverse problems > ("I have the output of this black box, how can we figure out what's > inside?"). I feel so frustrated with this, because if only they had > requested for source and documentation when they bought it, something > that apparently never even crossed their minds, then their newfound > problems would be trivial. > > This is my strongest argument for openness with engineering software, > from a personal perspective. Duplication of efforts, with many > companies implementing the same or similar software in their own > secret ways (NIH syndrome) is another silly thing that happens behind > copyright laws and non-disclosure agreements and something that > software freedom can reduce or eliminate. > > I think you too should care about these things. I have a vested > interest in you caring about these things, because attitudes from > people like you not caring end up spreading to others close to my > field of endeavour, and then we get results as insulting as this one, > a tutorial telling us why we're too dumb to understand their complex > internals: > > > http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/WhyYouDoNotUsuallyNeedToKnowAboutInternals.html > > I do not know much about PCB software or to what extent these > arguments apply to your own situation, but my guess is that they also > do and that having source and the freedoms that come with it would > also be hugely beneficial and a good long-term strategy. > > Dixi, > - Jordi G. H. > Jordi, I in theory I agree with you. However, as any engineer will tell you, there is a large gap between theory and practice. Right now, I need to practice my profession. When someone develops and maintains a FOSS solution that runs on Linux that lets me interoperate with my Solidworks-using colleagues flawlessly I will happily donate to the project twice what I would be paying to Solid. That's a lot of money to motivate someone. Until they fill that need that I have, I will continue to use the only solution that exists, which is a proprietary solution. Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?