New Free Autodesk Viewer

[beegee]

Autodesk have released a new free viewer named Trueview. (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5921930&siteID=123112)

It's a 100 Mb download.

Trueview allows users to plot files to large format and standard sheet sizes and supports all Autocad release from 2.0 to 2006 ( 20 years ! )

It does not have mark up capabilities, ( you need Composer for that )

It will view 2D and 3D dwg / dwf.

[aaronrumple]

I'm not sure why we need one viewer for DWF and yet another for DWG....

[beegee]

You don't. TrueView supports both.

Unless you want to mark-up.


I'm not sure why we need one viewer for DWF and yet another for DWG....

[aaronrumple]

It does....?

[beegee]

Sorry, I stand corrected.

It will publish to DWF though. :?

[k.armstrong]

Its just a bit LATE isn't it?? now we have DWF & PDF

and who's client is going to be inclined to download a 100Mb file!

[Scott D Davis]

and there are other viewers, such as the free Oce Tools Publisher, which can view DWG, DWF, PDF, and PLT from within the same program. In fact, it can take any combination of any of the above and create an LDF file which will spit right out of any OCE printer. You don't have layer control, but that's not really what this is about...to me its more about sending your client a file, and they can see it in the state in which you send it. Most clients don't want to monkey around with layers. (if they even know what they are.)

[Joef]

If the client really wants to see the file, a PDF is way better. Some people are still not using paperspace and I challenge a non tech savvy client to make sense of their AutoCAD file.

Joe

[aggockel50321]

It seems Adesk just can't get any of these viewers they've released over the past years to stick, and all the changes just adds to the confusion.

Makes pdf look better all the time.

[aaronrumple]

I still have to make a PDF so managers can print. I took a look at Trueview to see if it would be good for the non-cadd people in the office. Close, but sill hard to print from.

[BWG]

Can DWF handle surface patterns or is that something Revit has implemented yet in its DWF export?

I went to export the model to DWF to send to a client and it was very poor. Colors only, no surface patterns. And one wall did not show the multiple materials displayed on the model. Very embarrasing. From what I say of 3D PDF, you don't have these limitations?.....

[vmichl]

and there are other viewers, such as the free Oce Tools Publisher, which can view DWG, DWF, PDF, and PLT from within the same program. ...
There is one major problem with all those non-Autodesk DWG viewers - you can never be sure that the displayed drawing is really the 100% exact contents of your DWG file. E.g. try to display the Budweiser.DWG (www.aac-solutions.cz/budweiser) compatibility-benchmark drawing in a non-Autodesk (non-RealDWG) viewer.

Vladimir Michl

[scott.sheppard]

Although to the outside observer it may seem like there is an inconsistent strategy here, that is not the case. Autodesk is trying to serve two sets of users: (1) An internal design team who collaborate over a LAN and (2) an extended design team who collaborate over the web.

1. For an internal design team, sharing DWG files is fine. The DWG files are after all - the real intellectual property.

2. For an extended team, the needs are different. The files them selves have to be smaller. DWF files are smaller than DWG files. The application download has to be smaller. The 100 MB DWG TrueView download size is not suited to everyone even in this day of increased bandwidth. The free Autodesk DWF Viewer is an order of magnitude smaller. The DWF is not the real intellectual property. It is more like an electronic plot. Users who work with DWG files can decide what to include/not include in a DWF.

So with this in mind, Autodesk has two free products: Autodesk DWG TrueView and the Autodesk DWF Viewer. More information is available at http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2005/09/the_advantages_.html

[dhurtubise]

Anyway, can't see Revit files. Still need to install Revit for that. then what's the usage ?

[aaronrumple]

That all sounds fine if your a sales person.

However, why should internally an enterprise have to load 2 different applications for DWG and DWF? Even if I'm distributing DWF and using DWG internally, I still have to view DWF for QA/QC and be able to view/print what has been distributed to clients. Now I've got to train the less technically savvy PM's how to run and use 2 different applications for two different file types.

For team collaboration, Autodesk should have one viewer that can view every damn file type they author. DWG, DWF, IPT, MAX, RVT, DWF, et. al. And they should also pick up viewing and printing of industry standard file types in the same app to really be competitive (IGE, SAT, CAL TIFF, etc...)

Autodesk has struggled with it's viewer/printing strategy for over a decade. They are still no closer to an elegant solution and just confounding customers.

[Wanderer]

I send pdf to people outside of my office, but, use a dwg viewer for inside staff with access to the server.
i would use dwf if I needed others to markup my files, but, it doesn't even come into play in my job.

I wholeheartedly agree that I'd like to see a 'one size fits all' viewer. that would be excellent.

That all sounds fine if your a sales person.

However, why should internally an enterprise have to load 2 different applications for DWG and DWF? Even if I'm distributing DWF and using DWG internally, I still have to view DWF for QA/QC and be able to view/print what has been distributed to clients. Now I've got to train the less technically savvy PM's how to run and use 2 different applications for two different file types.

For team collaboration, Autodesk should have one viewer that can view every damn file type they author. DWG, DWF, IPT, MAX, RVT, DWF, et. al. And they should also pick up viewing and printing of industry standard file types in the same app to really be competitive (IGE, SAT, CAL TIFF, etc...)

Autodesk has struggled with it's viewer/printing strategy for over a decade. They are still no closer to an elegant solution and just confounding customers.

[lcamara]

My biggest complaint is that you still have to pay to be able to measure your own drawings, if you want the AutoCAD interface. Hooking all our guys up with Composer, or a floating license of full-blown AutoCAD, is just too expensive when Bentley's Redline will do it for free.

Although, it should be easier now for the engineers to view & print drawing files (with a more familiar interface) if they want to scale something by hand. But I hesitate to recommend that they choose between two viewers or full AutoCAD, depending on what they're doing. I'm still looking for that one elegant solution.

At least you no longer have to buy Composer to get a DWG viewer from Autodesk.

BTW, I am experimenting with DWFs (as part of a typical detail library system) because they can be embedded in a web page (like a picture) as opposed to a PDF (which needs to be a link), but they just aren't practical for viewing the most current data (which is in DWG). I still don't like the idea (even if we were to get Composer) of the Engineer needing to open the DWG in a viewer, print it to DWF, open the DWF in Composer, then mark it up. They should be able to markup the DWG directly.

[Chad Smith]

For team collaboration, Autodesk should have one viewer that can view every damn file type they author. DWG, DWF, IPT, MAX, RVT, DWF...
Totally agree. There needs to be an Autodesk Viewer.

As a Revit user, I and others who have to read my drawings have no need for a DWG Viewer.
Since Revit can't print a decent DWF file yet, then I also have no need for a DWF Viewer.

But a viewer that can read an RVT file I do need. I know that you can use the Revit application in demo mode, but to management who can barely use a computer, this is just too confusing and complex. A viewer that can read RVT files needs to be simple and to the point.

Autodesk have been barking up the wrong tree for years now for the company that I work for, and it looks as though things aren't going to change.

PDF Rocks!!!

[Martin P]

There is one major problem with all those non-Autodesk DWG viewers - you can never be sure that the displayed drawing is really the 100% exact contents of your DWG file. E.g. try to display the Budweiser.DWG (www.aac-solutions.cz/budweiser) compatibility-benchmark drawing in a non-Autodesk (non-RealDWG) viewer.

Vladimir Michl


I read something similar this recently, something called "true DWG" or something like that? It has to do with DWG files that have not been created with Autodesk products. I think the DWG format has some "secret" parts to it or something that that third party developers dont get to see. I think they are planning to make it all a bit more open now.

Makes DXF look more appealing when they come out with something like that! - It seems a strange idea to me for Autodesk to be undermining their own file format??? what is that all about?

[Ruben]

I read something similar this recently, something called "true DWG" or something like that? It has to do with DWG files that have not been created with Autodesk products. I think the DWG format has some "secret" parts to it or something that that third party developers dont get to see. I think they are planning to make it all a bit more open now.

Makes DXF look more appealing when they come out with something like that! - It seems a strange idea to me for Autodesk to be undermining their own file format??? what is that all about?

Martin,

You sound a bit naive. File format obfuscation has been the name of the game for both AutoDesk and Microsoft for a long time. Remember what happens when a new version of their programs is released and their file formats are not readable by the old version of the program? That's right, everyone is pressured to upgrade or else they will be labeled as incompatible withe current state of the art. If their file formats were open, some third party could simply create a pluggin or a full replacement program that could read and write the files.

For the first time, however, that trend is beginning to show some weakness, at least in Microsoft's case. A group of "Open Source" programmers in collaboration with industry heavy weights like IBM, Adobe, and others, have produced an open file format for office type documents. It is called OpenDocument and it has been submitted as a standard to the OASIS consortium. Even better news is that the format is now available for use through the OpenOffice.org free Office Suit (www.openoffice.org). And, the state of Massachusetts is looking into making this format the official format for the state's documents. The rationale is that using this format the state is free from dependence to a single private corporation and can choose who to get their software from. Many other governments around the world are considering similar moves. Of course, Microsoft is not very happy about this. They could easily support this format on their products, but that will probably be their last resort.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if something similar happened on the CAD world? DXF is not quite a standard since i believe there are different versions of it. AutoDesk does not want an open dwg standard file format. They want to be in control of it, so that we are Dependant on them for solutions. This, and the fact that AutoDesk is neglecting Linux (an open source operating system), is creating a vacuum that developers will eventually be moved to fill. AutoDesk could extend their control of the market by releasing their products on Linux, but in the long run I think open formats are going to be harder and harder to fend off. They will have to compete on a more level playing field.

[Batman]

Now, wouldn't it be nice if something similar happened on the CAD world? ........, but in the long run I think open formats are going to be harder and harder to fend off. They will have to compete on a more level playing field.
Now you're sounding naive.

Last I heard Richard Stallman (Open Source Supporter) has been trying to fight a plight by governments who are looking to introduce new patent and copyright laws which may close the lid on software development. Essentially the new laws would be directed at not just applying patents on "a" software package but to smaller items such as strings of software lines and modules within, or even outside of, software packages.

On a brighter note I also heard that Google and Sun are joint venturing to produce direct competition to the MS Office suite of products. Given Google's track record they most certainly seem (joint with Sun) up to the task. Oh and they also said it would be FREE.

Of course if the Open Source development gets knocked on the head then it could all be over.

Here is small clip from Richard Stallman's site http://www.gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org/)

"Software patents
The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.

There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users want. What will we do when this happens?

Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the patented features. But those who value free software because they expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development, and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle."

[Steve_Stafford]

My turn to be naive...why would a professional programmer give away hard work? Because they are so rich from that "dot-com" they rode to the top that they don't need an income? Where is it written that software should be free? Shouldn't my detergent, motor oil, cars be free too?

Just curious?

[Batman]

My turn to be naive...why would a professional programmer give away hard work? Because they are so rich from that "dot-com" they rode to the top that they don't need an income? Where is it written that software should be free? Shouldn't my detergent, motor oil, cars be free too?

Just curious?
Whether something "should" be free or not is not the argument, its whether you can create something, if you so choose, that is free that doesn't infringe on patents in force.

BTW, Google's got bucket loads of cash. Billions of people who use their products haven't paid them a penny.

[Steve_Stafford]

...BTW, Google's got bucket loads of cash. Billions of people who use their products haven't paid them a penny...So we can use Revit for free if they get to put in advertising, offer internet searching and track click thru? hmmm...

[Ruben]

My turn to be naive...why would a professional programmer give away hard work? Because they are so rich from that "dot-com" they rode to the top that they don't need an income? Where is it written that software should be free? Shouldn't my detergent, motor oil, cars be free too?

Just curious?


People have been offering freeware for a long time with different motivations behind it. Some do it simply because they want to share with the world. Others have done it in hopes of achieving large distribution and then offering new versions of the same program for a fee. That is why it is important to distinguish between freeware and "free software". The latter has more to do with freedom than with lack of cost. this is so, because free software includes the source code *and* the license to use that source code as one pleases, including redistributing a modified version of the software for a fee (as long as you give your users the same freedoms you received from the original code).

Now, why would people release their software as free software? Some do it because they want to share with the world and ensure that their "gift" remains available and not hidden away in some proprietary program. Some do it "just for fun", like Linus Torvalds, the originator of the Linux kernel (a lot of times this type of developers end up getting very good jobs because the quality of their code is available for inspection). Many are doing it in order to get collaboration from the world at large to improve their program. Still others do so because they realize that trying to compete with an established software program using traditional "closed source" business models is very much impossible, no matter how good their program is. Even freeware doesn't have a chance competing against many established programs since they are viewed as unprofessional, not reliable, and generally not trustworthy. Free software on the other hand offers transparency in the code. That is, with closed source software you don't know exactly what the program is doing behind your back (or your firewall), it could be sending all kinds of information about your business back to their company or someone else. This in not a problem with free software, because the source code is available for the whole world to inspect. Some business are finding that assurance desirable, especially many governments. Free software developers are making money today offering services around the software, like support (Red Hat, MySql), hardware and integration (IBM), customized or closed source pluggins that offer higher functionality than the base package (Novell, Sun), etc.

So you see, there are many reasons to release software a free software. But, just to emphasize, "free software" is not free in the sense of money. You may charge for it if you want. But, it has to do with the freedom that the software carries with it.

[Ruben]

Now you're sounding naive.

Last I heard Richard Stallman (Open Source Supporter) has been trying to fight a plight by governments who are looking to introduce new patent and copyright laws which may close the lid on software development. Essentially the new laws would be directed at not just applying patents on "a" software package but to smaller items such as strings of software lines and modules within, or even outside of, software packages.

On a brighter note I also heard that Google and Sun are joint venturing to produce direct competition to the MS Office suite of products. Given Google's track record they most certainly seem (joint with Sun) up to the task. Oh and they also said it would be FREE.

Of course if the Open Source development gets knocked on the head then it could all be over.

Here is small clip from Richard Stallman's site http://www.gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org/)

"Software patents
The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.

There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users want. What will we do when this happens?

Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the patented features. But those who value free software because they expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development, and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle."


I don't understand what part of what I said sounds naive to you. (Richard Stallman, by the way is not an "Open Source Supporter", he is a "Free Software" supporter. I'll let you do your own research to see the distinction.) If what you mean is that it is naive to think that the current government and the current market leaders are going to allow free software to flourish, well you may be right. I can't be sure of that. I just think that it may be too late for them. Free software is already flourishing all over the world, including in the US.

The product that you mentioned, on which Sun and Google are supposed to collaborate on and offer to the world is already available (www.OpenOffice.org), and it is a free software product. The state of Massachusetts has decided to use its file format, OpenDocument format (submitted as a standard to the OASIS consortium), as the standard format to be used for their documents. But yes, there is resistance to it, especially of course, by Microsoft. I believe that today there is supposed to be a meeting in Boston of many state officials (friendly to Microsoft) in order to try to reverse this decision. They may be able to do it. But, my point still stands, that it is going to get harder and harder to fend off this type of software.

As far as patents go, they do seem to be problem. But, everyone seems to agree in their disgust with them. At this point they are just looming as a threat. I am not aware of any free software developer having been sued because of a patent. If that was to happen, there are many organizations with provisions already in place to defend them. Just remember that IBM itself is the largest patent holder in the world, and they are sure interested in the success of Linux. So, the situation right now is a lot like the cold war, the weapons are on hold because of the likely scenario of assured mutual destruction.

[Batman]

Marquez,

Thanks, but I don't need to research it any further. Whether it Free or Open source ?? What the relevance of your point???

Open source is about allowing faster and more creative development of software through the involvement of anyone who so chooses. Richard Stallman is a supporter of Open Source.

Open Office is a Sun development, what I understand Google are doing is creating a new product based on Open Office with the support of Sun but it will not be Open Office. Last news read on this though questions whether it would go ahead.

The analogy about "the cold war" is completely absurd ???

I stand corrected it is not so much your naivety but more so your ignorance.

Its you who needs to do some research.

[Ruben]

Thanks, but I don't need to research it any further. Whether it Free or Open source ?? What the relevance of your point???

Open source is about allowing faster and more creative development of software through the involvement of anyone who so chooses. Richard Stallman is a supporter of Open Source.


It is not relevant to my point. That is why I expressed it as a parenthetical expression. I did mention it because it is an important disctinction to be made, as Mr Stallman himself has expressed. For those interested in learning more about this point you can see his explanation here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html



Open Office is a Sun development, what I understand Google are doing is creating a new product based on Open Office with the support of Sun but it will not be Open Office. Last news read on this though questions whether it would go ahead.


Yes, I think it is simply an attempt by Sun to get more publicity to their StarOffice product, which as you say is based on OpenOffice but includes some extra fonts, templates, support by Sun, and I don't know what else. Who knows if it is going to happen, but as I said, you don't have to wait for that deal to happen. Simply download OpenOffice, or get StarOffice from Sun.




The analogy about "the cold war" is completely absurd ???

I stand corrected it is not so much your naivety but more so your ignorance.

Its you who needs to do some research.

Vince,

I'm sorry if I said something that upset you. I didn't mean to. I don't expect you to agree with me, but since you are open to public debate, it would be good if you gave some evidence to show why "the cold war" analogy is flawed. The analogy is not mine, by the way. The situation with regards to patents in the software world has been compared to the cold war by many people for quite a while. Here is an example, if you are interested. You don't have to read it if you don't want to...

http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/print.pl?sid=05/09/19/1629249

Now, trying to get back on topic a little, I think this new software ideology is a good opportunity for CAD developers. I admit that for AutoDesk there is not a lot of benefit in coming up with an open file format for CAD, but they could make a killing and cement their position as market leaders by offering their products in Linux. There are a lot of Engineering offices that buy Windows only because AutoCAD/Revit requires it. If they could shave the Windows expense from their annual budgets and still be completely functional (not to mention much less worried about viruses and computer crashes), I think they would be quite eager to upgrade to an AutoCAD/Revit for Linux package.

The opportunity for other CAD vendors exists in that there is a big market for open, standards based, file formats, again, especially in the governments field, but more and more in the public sector as well. Just today this article was published about the UK's "biggest school building project in history" and their requirements for open file formats.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051026195537674

So, it seems to me that if a good open CAD file format was created, probably based on XML, and if it was submitted to a standards body and accepted, CAD products that used it would have a leg up on the competition when bidding on government contracts. I think it is just a matter of time before happens. I mean there is a lot of mucho dinero on the line. Of course if the CAD program itself was free software well then...
Now, this may seem far fetched to those not familiar with the prowesses of free/open source developers. But, believe me it is not that far fetched at all. Already there are some projects attempting to do just this. Right now they are small and not too impressive, but then again, that is how Linux got started and look at it now. For a taste just look at latest desktop version provided by Novell:

http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/index.html?sourceidint=hdr_products_suse

[DaveP]

BTW, Google's got bucket loads of cash. Billions of people who use their products haven't paid them a penny.
So does Microsoft. I think a few people Have paid them a penny or two.

[GuyR]

Open Office is a Sun development, what I understand Google are doing is creating a new product based on Open Office with the support of Sun but it will not be Open Office

Open Office is the open source version of starOffice. An office suite Sun purchased from German developers a number of years ago. I use it exclusively and the pdf with bookmarking in V2 is great. If you purchase starOffice the most important feature you get is support.ie Someone to telephone when things aren't working. Very important for big business.Interestingly Microsofts response is rather than implementing a OpenDocument exporter they're going to provide a PDF writer as standard!!! Go figure... Bye bye DWF...

What I think people don't understand about OpenSource is it's not about program code as much as who owns the data generated by the program. OS gives a company the confidence that should the programmers go belly up they would always be able to extract and manipulate their data. The additional point some people don't understand is Opendocument is a well written XML schema. So external developers can generate and manipulate documents without opening OpenOffice. Also as a XML schema it's inherently cross platform. Think filling in forms... Great for big business.

Regarding Open CAD formats we already have one. IFC and the xml version xmlIFC. However as a general interface to other disiplines I think it's fundamentally flawed. Some CAD firms eagerness in promoting IFC I think has more to do with Autodesks attitude to open standards than them thinking it's a better way of working. With an API now I hope firms will concentrate on this rather than using IFC. IFC has merit as a code checking interface but even then I think there's better ways of addressing this.

Guy

[iru69]

Richard Stallman was the second name I learned (after Linus Torvalds). Based on his writings and the many references I've read about him over the last several years, I'd say he's operating on the fringe of the open source movement and somewhat frustrated at his growing irrelevance. The very reason Stallman is irrelevant is because his principles became more important than the purpose rather than serving the purpose. A perfect example is the very name of "his" movement: "free software"... which he admits is inherently confusing, yet he can see no means to make it less so by simply changing the name. The term "free software" serves his principle rather than his purpose.

Some people use Open Source because they want "free as in beer" software. Others use Open Source because they want "free as in freedom" software. They're willing to accept that people may have many different reasons for wanting to use Open Source software. They understand that there is a danger in accepting "in" too many of the "free as in beer" crowd... that the ultimate objectives get lost and the movement becomes something it was never intended to be. But the other danger is becoming Richard Stallman.

Now, either ny_r_marquez also aspires to make an issue of such semantics, or he is naive in that he has gotten caught up in such semantics.

Applying the "cold war" analogy to proprietary software versus open source software may make for some interesting theory, but offers little in the way of reality. Take Microsoft's patents on the FAT file system. Microsoft may not be able to collect any money if they sue the OSDL, but they could stop FAT support from being included with the Linux kernel. Linux without FAT support (one of the main ways Linux is able to access data on Windows servers) could seriously hamper its growing popularity. There's only one party there that's holding the cards, and it's not the OSDL.

I don't feel any safer with the future of digital rights hinging on the "cold war" theory any more than I felt safe with the nuclear balance hanging on such a theory. That we haven't annihilated the planet in a nuclear apocalypse to this point only means that we're still here.

While this entire topic is on the barest of threads of having anything to do with Revit (I guess we got here based on open file formats related to dwg), digital rights is probably the most important issue facing life as we know it. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic, and I know this will sound a bit pretentious, but Steve's "Just curious?" post displayed such an absolute misunderstanding of the point, it just has to be said: we can all argue over the semantics of free software and open source, but if you're still reading this thread and think none of this has much to do with you - it already does in ways you've probably never thought about and you need to get informed and involved - now. A good place to start is the Electronic Frontier Foundation - www.eff.org

[hand471037]

Richard Stallman was the second name I learned (after Linus Torvalds). Based on his writings and the many references I've read about him over the last several years, I'd say he's operating on the fringe of the open source movement and somewhat frustrated at his growing irrelevance.

Thinking that all Open Source software folks are like Stallman is like thinking all Christians like to handle snakes and speak in tounges just because a very small minority of them do.


Some people use Open Source because they want "free as in beer" software. Others use Open Source because they want "free as in freedom" software.

Another major factor in Open Source is the simple fact that the majority of software that's written in the world isn't written to sell to other people. I don't remember the exact number, but it's something like 70% of all software is written to support in-house endeavors for businesses or is embedded into other products such as cars and iPods.

When your core business isn't writing software, you don't really care to keep all the rights to that software. It sometimes helps you to share with others doing the same thing you are.

A great example of this is in Revit Families. They really are a sort of 'code', for they are Objects for Revit. I share mine freely. I give them away. I trade them with others. Because selling Revit Families isn't my business, my business is making buildings and things (and helping others do the same). The more Families I have the easier it is for me to make buildings, and the more I share with others what I'm doing the more I learn about making Families. If I decide to not share mine, well, it only really hurts me in the long run, for I gain nothing by not sharing them, whereas by sharing them I gain much.

Another great example of this is the Apache web server. Many people need a decent, secure webserver that can be edited and customized to do what they need. Their business isn't selling web server software, it may be to provide web hosting, to have a website to market their business, or maybe they do write some web application but don't have the time or need to recreate a whole web server under it. Now, there is Microsoft's IIS web server, as well as other commercial ones, but for reasons of cost, the inability to customize it to suit your needs, or the factor that you want to have your web application usable by anyone (not just IIS users, which are a minority), the Open Source Apache web server is a great way to go instead. And, since it's not your business to write and sell web server software, if you find a bug or fix a bug, or heck, just use the software in a interesting way you can share that to the world, and get in return other found bugs, fixed bugs, and great ideas of how to use the software, all for free.

So there are times that Open Source makes a lot of sense. Steve points out that software developers need to eat, and shouldn't be 'forced' to give away things for free. That's certainly true. But I'd bet if you went to those small shops that are making games, shareware utilities, and the like, that they are using a lot of open source, whether in tools, programing languages, or in delivery of the software. For what you're paying for it the value they added by making that game or utility, not whether or not they chose a commercial solution or an open source one.

I mean, Revit's written in C++. A pretty industry standard thing. There are commercial versions, open source versions, and a plethora of tools and libraries as well, again some of which are open and some of which aren't. Do we care which ones were used? Or do we care that Revit works?

If you're using Windows, you're using Open Source code. The TCP/IP stack, the way that Windows talks to the Internet, the way you're reading AUGI right now- it's largely based upon BSD's TCP/IP stack, it shares more than a little code with it, and BSD is a Open Source version of Unix that started at UC Berkeley. Just root in the copywrite notices within Window and you'll see the notice there that's required to post when you use BSD code within your product...


we can all argue over the semantics of free software and open source, but if you're still reading this thread and think none of this has much to do with you - it already does in ways you've probably never thought about and you need to get informed and involved - now. A good place to start is the Electronic Frontier Foundation - www.eff.org

Here here! The EFF is a great place to give money to, for they are helping us on *all* fronts in regards to freedom and technology, Open or Closed.

[Ruben]

Richard Stallman was the second name I learned (after Linus Torvalds). Based on his writings and the many references I've read about him over the last several years, I'd say he's operating on the fringe of the open source movement and somewhat frustrated at his growing irrelevance. The very reason Stallman is irrelevant is because his principles became more important than the purpose rather than serving the purpose. A perfect example is the very name of "his" movement: "free software"... which he admits is inherently confusing, yet he can see no means to make it less so by simply changing the name. The term "free software" serves his principle rather than his purpose.


You know, if Mr Stallman was to die today his achievements would probably be imediately heralded around the world and he would be exalted and honored as a genius. Just coming up with the GPL license alone has the *potential* of having more lasting impact on the world than the achievements of many other greatly honored men in history. He is greatly disparaged and maligned by many of his pears, which seems to also be a common thread in the history of unusually gifted men. I don't particularly share many of his beliefes, but I do respect the man for what he has done.



Some people use Open Source because they want "free as in beer" software. Others use Open Source because they want "free as in freedom" software. They're willing to accept that people may have many different reasons for wanting to use Open Source software. They understand that there is a danger in accepting "in" too many of the "free as in beer" crowd... that the ultimate objectives get lost and the movement becomes something it was never intended to be. But the other danger is becoming Richard Stallman.


Nothing too insightful here. As far as I can make out, all you are saying is that it is good not to go to extreemes. Well, that is just common sense isnt it?



Now, either ny_r_marquez also aspires to make an issue of such semantics, or he is naive in that he has gotten caught up in such semantics.


Here is another possibility. Maybe you haven't been able to grasp the difference on the the terms or the reasons why they are important to many. Maybe you should try re-reading the link I posted before on this point. Or is it that you do understand it, but it serves your purposes better to dismiss the difference as unimportant? When pursuing your purpose puts you in conflict with what other people find important and yet you push forward, it is good to examine what principles you live by, if any.



Applying the "cold war" analogy to proprietary software versus open source software may make for some interesting theory, but offers little in the way of reality. Take Microsoft's patents on the FAT file system.


Well, you are sure welcome to hold your own beliefs on the matter. As probably a lot of people do, I do think that the patent situation is a mine field, but not yet bad enough to stop advancing. While Microsoft still has hopes of being able to get a patent on the FAT file system, they havent had much success so far.

http://www.betanews.com/article/print/Two_Microsoft_FAT_Patents_Rejected/1128546845



Microsoft may not be able to collect any money if they sue the OSDL, but they could stop FAT support from being included with the Linux kernel. Linux without FAT support (one of the main ways Linux is able to access data on Windows servers) could seriously hamper its growing popularity. There's only one party there that's holding the cards, and it's not the OSDL.

Well, lets imagine that Microsoft manages to turn things around a gets a patant on the FAT file system. Linux does not depend on FAT to access Microsoft's file servers. I sincerely doubt that there are file servers still running FAT as the file system anywhere in the world. Even on individual worstations FAT is a rare thing this days. Where you do find it a lot is on little things like floppies and USB thumb drives. Big deal! Sure, it will inconvenience many who don't know how to work around it (and by that I don't mean illegaly :)). But, it seems to me that this would hardly be a bump in the road for Linux. It would probably open up the door for some commercial vendor to license FAT and offer a distribution of Linux with FAT support for a fee for those that really have to have it.



I don't feel any safer with the future of digital rights hinging on the "cold war" theory any more than I felt safe with the nuclear balance hanging on such a theory. That we haven't annihilated the planet in a nuclear apocalypse to this point only means that we're still here.

I agree with you. But, were you trying to make a point that some how the situation is safer by continuing to build on a proprietary foundation. If you weren't, well let me just say this any way. It isn't. I mean, Bill Gates just provided the perfect example the other day.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh57891_2005-10-28_08-44-54_seo367555_newsml

He has essentialy threatened the Korean government with retiring Windows from Korea (and with it the ability of the government to read their own data) unless they get their way. No wonder governments and many companies are looking for a way out and are finding open document formats, Linux, and other free/open source software appealing.



While this entire topic is on the barest of threads of having anything to do with Revit (I guess we got here based on open file formats related to dwg), digital rights is probably the most important issue facing life as we know it. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic, and I know this will sound a bit pretentious

A bit pretentious is quite an understatement. I mean, sure, if the big greedy corporations of today get their way and are able to charge us for every step we take it will surely make our lives quite a bit more inconvenient. But just think, approximately a quarter of the world's population lives in extreme poverty, and millions live in subhuman conditions that threaten their survival. More than 200 million children are undernourished. Each year diarrhea kills about three million children under five years of age. Infectious diseases killed some 16.5 million people in 1993 alone. An estimated 500 million people are affected by some type of mental problem. Suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among youths than in any other age bracket. And if we start talking about the Amazon rain forest and the environment things get very scary.

Personally, I would love to be able to use Linux now for our office CAD stations to save a little money and to have a more solid and reliable OS under the hood, but I don't think it is all that important.

[iru69]

Yowzer!


You know, if Mr Stallman was to die today his achievements would probably be imediately heralded around the world and he would be exalted and honored as a genius...
I would agree that Stallman's contributions have been significant to open source software, and I didn't mean to dismiss him as some kind of failure as a human being. That being said, I think my point still stands. Open source is a large enough tent that it can welcome all sorts of reasons for its existance. It even is a large enough tent to welcome "free software". But, if it's that important to you that you need to have your own separate tent, you're entitled.


Well, lets imagine that Microsoft manages to turn things around a gets a patant on the FAT file system...
Regarding the FAT patents - I was simply trying to point out that the "cold war theory" obviously hasn't stopped companies from suing one another over patents, and that just because there's really no monetary gain by suing OSDL doesn't mean that it couldn't have a negative effect on open source. I didn't think I needed to lay the technical groundwork for a debate on the merits of FAT.


A bit pretentious is quite an understatement. I mean, sure, if the big greedy corporations of today get their way and are able to charge us for every step we take it will surely make our lives quite a bit more inconvenient. But just think, approximately a quarter of the world's population lives in extreme poverty...
Well, actually, I don't think of digital rights as being just about downloading music off the net... or whether Linux has a future. Food and medicine are just a couple of the areas that are being affected by digital rights. Human rights, civil rights, privacy rights are all being rewritten by the new digital world we live in. Standing up for these rights, these principles if you will, is paramount to ensuring that we continue to have them in the future.

Hey ny_r_marquez, I can see how some of the wording in my previous post might have contributed to misunderstandings (it was that "naive" comment that did it, right? :)), but I think we're really playing for the same team here.

Thanks to all for contributing to such an interesting conversation! And apologies to all who keep checking this thread hoping for more info on the New Free Autodesk Viewer!

[Wanderer]

Thanks to all for contributing to such an interesting conversation! And apologies to all who keep checking this thread hoping for more info on the New Free Autodesk Viewer!~nods~ I hope you'll chip in something nice for whomever has to clean my exploded brain off of my desk. ;)