[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: Linux article -- unintentional FUD (I'm an engineer)

[Bryan J. Smith]

Alvin Goats wrote;
> I concur that the issue with the desk top is the apps.
> Part of the vendor lock in has to do with engineering and
> accounting tools in the corporate world. First, there is a lack
> of the proper software tools in Linux, and where there are some
> tools, they lack the portability or functionality of their
> windows counterparts.
> One of the key "we can't move to Linux" issues involves
> engineering,

This is unintentional FUD for 2 reasons.  I will explain.


1.  Engineering is _more_ than CAD, don't forget CAM and EDA!

My father is a land surveyor and I spend years in the civil engineering
field.  AutoCAD is a staple there.  I was working on AutoCAD v9 before
I even finished middle school.

But I am a degreed ECE (UCF), and in our realm, we use Electronic Design
Automation (EDA) which is "our CAD."  Furthermore, I spent years in the
missile defense industry, and our CAD there is Computer Aided Modeling
(CAM).

In the EDA (electrical/computer) and CAM (mechanical/aerospace) fields,
Linux is *THE* platform now.  They were _heavily_ UNIX before.  

Several EDA and CAM vendors released "light" versions for NT in the late
'90s.  But it quickly became a point that Linux was much easier to port
to than NT, and now Linux is *THE* platform for EDA and CAM.

EDA vendors iCadence nclude Mentor Graphics, Modeltech, Synopsys
and many others. The only Windows-centric company I can think of was
ViewLogic, but I think Mentor now owns them.

EDA companies are _heavy_ Linux shops.  There might be NT "front-end"
desktops, but _all_ of the engineering work is done on Linux now.
Just ask ATI and nVidia, or Transmeta or my former company, Theseus
Logic.

You guys are in Texas, a far _bigger_ EDA state that Florida, so
many of you _should_ know what I'm talking about.

The CAM vendor that is a stample in the mechanical/aerospace world
is  Prometric's Pro/Engineer.  It quickly went Linux 100% after
nVidia started besting SGI's workstation performance.  Most NASTRAN
and systems that handle things like computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) and other modeling and stress simulation packages are on UNIX.

[ I know, I helped port some of the first to Linux in 1998-99. ;-]

Heck, some of the early CAM ports to Windows still required an X-
Server!  When Linux got popular, it was more native than the NT ports!

Just ask Boeing**, Lockheed-Martin and smaller contractors like
Orbital, Space Vector or my former company, L-3 Coleman Aerospace.

eWeek has been mis-quoting me on Linux (without my permission)
since 1998 (I've stopped corresponding with them since).  I have been
quoted in other vendor and publications as well.

**Boeing also has another, _huge_ Freedomware note.  They were
a founding member of the OASIS Open Office XML standard.  Boeing is
_the_ mega-documentation producer in the engineer world -- at least
in the US.  That's a _major_coup_ compared to MS Office's XML efforts,
which require you to use MS Office at the core (because the XML
meta-data and support is not open).  That's just not doable with
manufacturer floors, and Boeing's signing says that _period_.


2.  Autodesk and Microsoft are Hostageware co-horts

First of, AutoDesk is a Hostageware vendor like Microsoft.
They only guarantee compatibility one version back.  But that's moot
for the argument here.

Autodesk _used_ to offer non-Windows versions.  Integraph supported
Bentley Microstation on non-Windows platforms exclusively, until
NT came around where it was the first native NT app.

I know, I was an IT tech at the #1 Microstation user in the early
'90s -- Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, PBS&J (the largest
consulting engineering firm in the SE US at the time).  My
supervisor was president of the International Intergraph Users
Group (IGUG).

Integraph-Bentley, other than a few "test" releases for Linux in
the mid-90s, was dedicated to NT.  But Autodesk was not.

Then Autodesk was challenged by IntelliCAD, started by former
Autodesk developers who seemingly didn't have NDAs (or worked
around them).  IntelliCAD was 1/6th the price and had a full,
reversed DWG support -- including 3D.

That's when things got "interesting."

A little known, but growing company, Visio, bought out IntelliCAD
with plans to get into the entry-level engineering market.  But
then something happened -- Visio became a killer app on Windows,
enough that Microsoft couldn't ignore, so Microsoft bought them.

Autodesk and Microsoft did a swap.

Microsoft killed IntelliCAD, building a consortium of developers
around the legacy (and now incompatible with the latest DWG)
IntelliCAD code.  It's like if Microsoft bought out StarDivision
instead of Sun, and allowed vendors to license the old 5.2 format.

In return, Autodesk not only ended all non-Windows versions, but
_forced_ everyone to switch to VBScript instead of AutoLisp.  This
caused mega-pains in the AutoCAD add-on market, but what else were
the add-on developers to do?

So by using Autodesk, you are signing your company up for more
Hostageware.  You are "vendor locked in."

The only bright spot is BrisCAD.  BrisCAD is an IntelliCAD licensee
who has released a WINE-compatible version of its suite for $299.
How long they will do that before Microsoft puts an end to it, I
don't know.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to BrisCAD.  But at
$299, it might not hurt to try it out while it exists for Linux
_now_.  ;-ppp


> in particular, drafting.

Drafting is nothing.  CFD for packaging, electrical and other
considerations is _everything_.  AutoCAD is a tinker-toy in comparison
to Pro/E IMHO.  I used AutoCAD to do 2D plots and surveys, or
building layouts, but for much beyond HVAC (heating, ventilation,
A/C), AutoCAD is _useless_ IMHO.

Same deal for EDA.  Even ViewLogic couldn't compare to real EDA
synthesis tools.  And forget drafting tools there.  I need something
that will convert combinational logic and a HDL (hardware description
language) and get me to layout and tape-out (i.e., when you send
the design to a multi-billion dollar semiconductor fabrication
center).

CAM and EDA have _sound_ underlying specifications at the _core_
of their documentaton.

CAD does not, and DXF is a joke.  So it's no wonder AutoCAD is one
of the best Hostageware products around.  Just like MS Office.

> The best and most universal CADD is AutoCad.

Universal to _whom_?  Do they use AutoCAD in aerospace?  Hell no.
Year in and year out various add-on vendors for AutoCAD attempt
to challenge Pro/E.  Not gonna happen.

> There are other CADD programs (I use SolidEdge myself), but
> there is nothing on the same level of capability in the Linux/Unix
> world.

Have you _ever_ heard of Pro/Engineer?  Nuff said.  ;-ppp

I've been all around all 3 engineering disciplines for much
of my 12 years of my career.  Please trust me when I say your
experiences are limited.

> Sure, there are some things out there that do a reasonable job,
> but they lack all of the functionality of the Windows based big guys.

Really?  I must be living in a fantasy land.

>I have to be able to read and write .dwg, .dxf format files, gerber
> files, IGES files. I need elipses and non-linear curve drawing
> capabilities. Outputing XML is nonsense as I have to be able to
> output file formats that can be loaded on CNC mills, drills,
> presses, lathes, etc. 

So?  You then you an intermedia translator that turns the XML into
the binary encoding expected by the machine.  That way you can use
_any_number_ of "front-end" programs that write the _same_ XML
to "target" _any_number_ of "back-end" machines.

XML is just a way to mitigate risk to any IP a company puts into
an underlying documentation format.  It doesn't have to be used by
an end-user device.  And it's a nice "center-piece" of standardization.

> Before I get the onslaught of googled possibilities, let's
> understand that I've done my homework and have tried or have:
> BRL-CAD
> Moonlight
> Blender
> QCadd
> PythonCad
> gcad3d
> The rest typically lack the ability to read or write any of the CADD
> file formats.

Huh?  BRL-CAD does a _number_ of the industry standard formats.

Yeah, it doesn't do DWG.  DWG is a Hostageware format.  People call it an
"industry standard" but it is not.  An "industry standard" would at least
need to be proprietary.  Autodesk, like Microsoft, has purposely prevented
some versions from being compatible with each other.  Why?

Forced upgrades.

> Consider: can DIA import and export Visio?

Can Visio import/export SVG?  Well, sort of.

And Dia is a poor example.  Open/StarDraw is _much_better_.

> What can do MS-Project, including importing and exporting Project files?

More Hostageware.

It's getting to the point that Microsoft is _so_ _protective_ of their
Hostageware formats that they are _forcing_ add-on developers to use
XML.  Why?  Because the _only_ way you can get data from MS Office
documents in 2003+ is to use MS Office as your back-end -- via these
XML interfaces.  To use them, you have to use MS Office as your
"XML backend."

Understand that correctly.  MS Office XML is _not_ for Word, Excel, 
PowerPoint, Project and the like.  It is for interfacing 3rd party
programs that need to access data in Excel, Project, etc...  The
XML is _one-way_.  Any import/export from MS Office itself is a
"content-only" XML -- as Microsoft does _not_ publish the XML
meta-data, DTDs and support XML files for rendering Word, Excel, etc...

At the most, they have an XSLT (stylesheet template) for modifying
basic layout -- that's all.

People who do not understand how XML works believe that "hey, Microsoft
offers standard XML."  XML is _not_ a standard, end-user documentation
language.   It is a standard, developer template for creating _vendor_
documentation language.  If the developer does not release the support
XML files for it, then it is _useless_ outside of the developer's
implementation.

HTML is an end-user documentation language (even if simplistic).  HTML
is an _example_ of XML.  XML itself is _useless_.

Boeing basically gave Microsoft the "middle finger" by signing onto
the OASIS Open Office XML standardization.  They said, "no, we will
not put MS Office as a backend as a "core" of our manufacturing
systems.  We will build our systems around OASIS Open Office XML, 
and our users will interface with them on their desktops with
Corel, Sun or Freedomware products that support it.

> While BRL-CAD has tons of features, it's extremely difficult to use as
> compared to AutoCAD or SolidEdge. That and most people are afraid to
> talk with the US Army, who owns and distributes it (something to do with
> sending signed snail mail forms to get the decryption key, I suppose,
> even though it is free). 

It's called national security, geez.  That's just argumentative.

And they do a poor job of it too, as the key is symmetric.  I'd see to
it that they'd use an asymmetric, public key licensing system.

> Most engineering uses modeling programs or math packages. Very few are
> ported, there are some equivalents that suffer lack of features similar
> to the CADD software, but all too many exist only in the Windows world.
> Consequently, I dual boot in order to do everything I need. 

> Accounting has similar issues. Many small and mid sized companies have
> old DOS based Lotus 1-2-3 programs written in house (macro programs in
> the spreadsheets). These programs were supported ONLY in one version
> of 1-2-3 and are unsupported in all other spreadsheet software, even
> the windows versions of Lotus 1-2-3. 
> Accounting also uses PeachTree and similar software packages that MUST
> either be supported, or import/export has to be perfect and seamless.
> Pricing for the packages must be kept at a similar level or the small to
> midsized companies can't afford to make the switch. 

Don't compare "Quickbooks/Peachtree" systems to full-up Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems.  Plus there is a lot of _crappy_ ERP
systems for Windows written in VB6 that I just _love_ to trash when
some vendor comes in-house and says, "hey, this is the greatest thing
since sliced bread."

Quality accounting/ERP systems are often written in Delphi, and have
been ported to Linux c/o Kylix.

Of the Freedomware and Standardware varieties, beyond the Quickbooks
capabilities you have in GNUCash (yes, it acts like Quickbooks as
much as Quicken), you have SQL-Ledger, Linux Canada's Quasar Accounting
and the "kitchen sick of CRM/ERP systems" in Compiere.

If you are in Orlando in mid-August, I'll be doing a presentation on
these 4 systems at LEAP.

> These are the types of things that prevent adoption on the desk top in
> most companies. The company senior staff would rather have ONE set of
> issues to deal with, i.e. windows or Unix, rather than support
> everything out there.

Those are two distinctly _separate_ issues.  Companies that like to
"stanardize" on vendors often run into issues with some vendor
products being sub-standard.  You should always have at least _2_
vendors so they compete against each other -- on technologies as
much as pricing.

As an original NT 3.1 beta tester (circa 1992+) and a Linux
user since 1993 (



> In the manufacturing world, some equipment has proprietary systems (K&S
> wire bonders), use Windows (QuadTek, Heller, BTU) or some form of
> Unix/Linux (RVSI, Mydata, F&K Delvotec). Maintaining all of this
> equipment is a nightmare due to the disparity of software architecture.
> It is actually more preferable to get a piece of equipment that has
> lower functionality/process throughput than to deal with another OS on a
> piece of equipment that is actually better.

The same thing is happening in the banking world.  But it's not because
of "support" issues.  It's the believe that non-Windows platforms
will have more "support" issues.

Diebold (of "we use Access without a password" voter tally fame) is
switching from OS/2 to NT in ATM systems.  IBM has been able to sell
some companies on Linux for ATM devices.  Why?  Not because of cost
or lack of superiority, but because of the belief that Windows is
"easier to support."

Anyone who has used a TiVo should _know_ that Linux is _easier_ to
support than Windows.  God I hate it when my Xbox screws up with clear
WinCE issues, or when my friend's Windows-based set-top dorks itself
up and he has to call his provider's tech support.

> If you want Linux to take over the desktop, you have to get ALL of the
> apps that are needed in the areas that it is lacking or there will not
> be any major changes in the movement. In the olden days, CADD was only
> done on Mainframes, until AutoCAD came along. Now CADD is done on the PC
> and not on mainframes. There is a need to be filled, go fill it and
> watch people migrate to Linux.

Define "mainframes"?  I think you speak about what you do not understand.

AutoCAD was available for non-PC platforms, including minis before micros.
So was Intergraph on MIPS until Benteley they standardized on NT -- even
though it didn't support dual-monitor.  That was something IGUG brought
up _directly_ with Gates in Huntsville _after_ Integraph-Benteley
committed to NT.

Gates' response?  Not worth our bother (and wasn't until NT 5.0/2000).

Not worth his bother?  Not a good response for a common configuration
the first native NT app runs under.  OS/2 had dual-head support at the time.

Linux is solving more engineering problems than NT has.  Politics and
Hostagewhere is how Microsoft keeps users at bay.

I think the Dell fiasco of '99-'00 was a prime example of how much control
Microsoft has.

Even when Intel, who funds Dell more than Microsoft (the only PC OEM that
is), forces Dell to sell Linux as a standard install when there are a
_guaranteed_ 100,000 systems/year to EDA/CAM companies, it doesn't happen.

How?  Microsoft plays games so Dell only "certifies" Linux with 128MB of
RAM and the _slowest_ processor available.  So when engineers like myself,
who buy the fastest systems with the most memory, call to order one, we
end up arguing with the Dell sales rep until they tell us, "look, we are
not allowed to sell you a configuration similar to  Windows on the same
box -- read into that what you like, because I can't do anything about it."

The end result?  No one buys them.  Microsoft declares Linux won't sell.

Worse yet, my stupid Sunnyvale office _defied_ my mandate _not_ to buy
the Windows configuration with more CPU speed and RAM, only to get
it innudated with add-on hardware that is _not_ Linux compatible
(ATA controller, CD-R/RW, etc...).  I loved that too!

It's a game.  Your proliferation of unintentional FUD makes it more
difficult.  This is _not_ conspiracy theory.  This is actual.

I don't blame Microsoft for what it does.  It's just playing cut-throat
business tactics.  I think consumers are to blame, not Microsoft.


-- 
     Linux Enthusiasts call me anti-Linux.
   Windows Enthusisats call me anti-Microsoft.
 They both must be correct because I have over a
decade of experience with both in mission critical
environments, resulting in a bigotry dedicated to
 mitigating risk and focusing on technologies ...
           not products or vendors
--------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.            b.j.smith at ieee.org