Pro/Engineer Coming to Linux 217
PotatoHead writes "
Parametric Technologies Corporation
(PTC) announced in a recent
press release, a Linux port of their flagship modeling product Pro
Engineer. HP will be the preferred partner for the Linux platform
release. This is pretty big news for the engineering and product design
crowd folks. There must be some fairly credible requests coming in for
this to happen."
Uhhh... (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who reads mailing lists or newsgroups knows how much people have been screaming for this. Just in case anyone was wondering, this might be one of those breakthrough apps that gives Linux mountains of credibility at the enterprise/collaberation level. This will probably help draw more developers to the platform; also something we could always use more of.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)
Well, it's not as necessary when you have intermediate formats such as IGES already in most of the commercial packages of the same vein (ProE, PATRAN, I-DEAS, Auto<whatever>, etc etc...). Plus, some of the apps can directly read format variations of the other programs (being able to read PATRAN neutral files, I-DEAS 'export' files (they had a specific name, but it's been ~2 years since I touched I-DEAS), Abaqus input decks, etc etc...)
And as a point of note, MSC has had a Linux (well, RedHat) version of PATRAN included with their dists for the last few releases. ANSYS has done it recently as well. HKS; it would be interesting to see the Abaqus solver go over.. that seems to be quite popular for FEA.
Too bad I'm currently unemployed; it was fun working with that crap.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)
Pro/DESKTOP is kindda "Pro/E lite".
Top Notch Software (Score:5, Informative)
OTOH, this is not cheap software. Usually several thousand $$ a seat.
Re:Top Notch Software (Score:1)
Re:Top Notch Software ... (Score:2)
They had some really dirty tricks though. They'd hire Russian programmers for well under market, and hold their green cards over their heads. Working there as a contractor meant that you were basically mulch.
I really learned to despise Irix on that job.
damn! it's payware!! (Score:4, Funny)
I can see the "Ask Slashdot" now: I manage a large aerospace machine shop and I'd like to run my shop on Linux. Is there an open-source 3D CAD/CAM program that will create NC programs that will properly control my 5-axis milling machines, lathes, and Okuma grinders? I hope to convince my managers this is a good idea!
- A.P.
3com logo ripoff (Score:1)
This is very cool (Score:4, Interesting)
TCO (Score:3, Insightful)
So, they are officially supporting Linux as a target platform, because they recognize it can have a lower TCO.
Which is true, of course, if they have UNIX expertise in-house. MCSEs are a dime a dozen, but good UNIX admins are quite expensive. If you go the consulting route, you get screwed with huge fees. If you train your personell, you get screwed with long courses and a decent change they simply won't get it.
Then again, if you have a competent staff or a big budget, *nix all the way. I know firsthand that the grass really is greener on the *nix side of the fence, but sometimes that's not feasible for large corporations. (Besides, many corporations are brainless and/or inflexible, and won't switch away from their Novell file servers, Lotus Notes 2.0, and NT 3.51, but they have bigger problems.)
Why did this get modded up? (Score:2)
Why is it that this gets modded up? Good MS admins are just as expensive as good unix admins, there's just more MS admins because of the way that MS built their software. When the only way to recover a computer is by reinstalling all the software, then yeah, you are going to NEED a bunch of disk monkeys to run around with CDs and hard drive images. But a good unix admin can do everything from remote, usually even if the user has hosed their system. (Thanks to a security model that is actually implemented!)
Maybe I should calm down... (Score:2)
I was thinking... (Score:1)
In context, it was ment to be extremely bad.
Re:Why did this get modded up? (Score:1)
Good MS admins are very hard to come by, because in my experience if they get good at Microsoft software -- actually understanding how it's supposed to work -- they get sick of it and switch to *nix. As much as people don't want to admit, Windows really is an inferior operating system that has no business in the data center. (Unfortunately, demands of Windows on the desktop may bring it in, but that can be minimized with tools like Samba.)
In any case, I agree with you and I found your disk monkey comment amusing :-)
Re:TCO (Score:2)
Feh. Inexperienced or bad MCSE's may be cheap. But if you hire a dummy to administer your network -- you have a dummy administering your network. Bad value, even if its cheap.
In my experience, good, experienced administrators are not significantly cheaper for Microsoft's platforms than are good, experienced *nix admins, and no more plentiful or easier to find either.
Furthermore, in my experience, you often need fewer *nix admins for a given number of users (or a given number of servers), so in many cases *nix is cheaper to administer in the long run.
Re:TCO (Score:2)
Re:TCO (Score:1)
The thing to realize is that many people running Pro/E are running on HP-UX workstations, so they do have the *nix experience. True, this software has been ported to Windows, but most of these packages (Pro/E, CATIA, Solidworks, Algor) started with roots in UNIX
It's a big deal because... (Score:2)
Re:TCO (Score:1)
While your point about Unix consultants being more expensive is true during the initial deployment stage, those costs drop off once the system is in place (assuming consultants). This is not as much the case with Windows, which is why you need those dime a dozen MCSEs. If a company had to pay as much to support Windows as Unix, no company would be running Windows.
Having worked on and supported both ends of the Windows vs. Unix spectrum, my experience has been while the initial setup and configuration of Windows may be shorter than say Linux, the overall support required by the Windows platform quickly eats up any savings a short and easy installation may provide. In the long run, the support costs involved with running Windows is far greater than the support costs running Unix.
This is why I think PTC's desicion to offer Pro/Engineer on Linux is great news for shops that use their software. A lower TCO can only mean increased profits. Who can deny the snazzy of that?
Re:TCO (Score:1)
But your statement about people not wanting to switch off of Novell/Lotus/NT 3.51... I have to ask why should they? I have a church that has been running Mandrake 7.x for well over 2 years now with 0 downtime! It acts as a PDC and a file/print server. That is all they ever needed. We are just now looking at migrating to RedHat 7.3, because they want to do some more with the server. I know of shops with Novell 4.x that have been up for 3+ years with no downtime. Their data gets backed up and they are happy. I agree that in most shops it doesn't make sense to stay back on software forever, but in a lot a places it makes a heck of a lot of sense.
I currently support a Novell 5, NT 4.x and RedHat Linux shop. I like stuff about all three and hate stuff about all three. If the grass is greener on the *nix side of the house, then when the heck are they going to loose the "Owner, Group, Other" file permissions? Specifically when will it ship with most major distro's? Have you ever tried to admin a system with over a couple hundred people and had to deal with this. It sucks when compared to Novell and NT. It is kinda sad in my opinion that the latest UNIX systems still haven't addressed this feature, but NT 3.5 and Novell 2.x did. That is why some of these shops don't want to switch. That and the fact that until Solaris 9, the UNIX answer to directory service was LDAP. Of course this was LDAP with no real tools to admin anything.
Re:TCO (Score:2)
Re:TCO (Score:2)
Re:ACL's (Score:2)
BTW: SGI contributed their XFS filesystem bringing ACL support in the filesystem with SAMBA for Linux. (others may do this, but I am aware of XFS at the moment.)
Re:TCO (Score:2)
And I agree.
Because supporting Novell, Lotus Notes, and NT 3.51 on the desktop is a nightmare, that's why. I agree in that servers can be left alone (heck, I have a box on a Linux 2.0 kernel that has yet to reboot), but on the desktop it does not make sense to use software that was obselete in 1996.
It's efficient and not all that hard to use. It's just as flexible as NT 3.5 and Novell 2.x -- what can NT 3 do that *nix file permissions can't?
I administer a network of a couple hundred people. It's my day job. I've had few file permissions issues, and far more issues with NT boxen shooting themselves in the foot. (In the past week, two Win2k print servers having their Print Spooler programs stop responding under zero load for no apparent reason. Of course, it was still "Started", so Win2k didn't give it a swift kick in the pants.)
Besides, if the grass is greener on the Windows side of the fence, why does *nix beat the tar out of Windows in terms of administration? I can reconfigure network cards via SSH, even the one I'm connected through. I can change the hostname without rebooting. I can create and schedule complex tasks with confidence that they will actually run. I can swap out critical system components without creating any downtime. I can partition, format, and allocate new storage space on a file server under full load. Not to mention the fact that the *nix command line is many, many, many times more powerful than the Windows point-and-click interface.
Ever hear of NIS?
Re:TCO (Score:1)
Its kind of like asking someone who can just operate a saw to do good quality woodwork..
Once you identify the ones who can think in your system adm pool of people you wil not have a problem..unless of course there is no one in that group that thinks..
Re:TCO (Score:1)
The claims of significant savings are bogus. At a previous employer the average CAD jockey cost about $25K/year for Pro/E licenses yearly. The cost for their workstation was barely 10%, and the cost for their OS was less than 1%.
see, the plan is that once Pro/Engineer is released on Linux, people will bitch and moan that it is not open-source (ie free) and then move on to the next free-as-in-warez rally..
Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:4, Interesting)
Pro-E is also VERY expensive when compared with the other CAD packages though....I'd really like to see Solidworks for Linux. I could TOTALY walk away from MS if that happened. I imagine that there are a lot of engineering operations that could do it too. All Linux workstations, no MS anywhere from the engineering office all the way out to the production floor.
I've recently written to the folks at Solidworks too, sort of the "....I'm really interested and would buy seats now if I had the opportunity..." No reply.
How about a really "kick-ass" engineering document control program to go with that?...I was just thinking about that last night, something to compete with Agile and the like.....
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:1)
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:2)
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:1)
Last summer I asked a SolidWorks sales VP, Boulder-Denver, if a Linux port was in the pipeline. He said no; "We're sticking with MS."
Has anyone had any success using 3d cad on a linux box; what is it called, VariCAD?
eof
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:1)
====
heh. i was laughed at when *I* asked.
Those SW people can be real pricks sometimes.
-john
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:2)
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:2)
Also, SolidWorks is very tightly integrated with Excel and is scriptable in VBA. Until Excel and VBA are officially supportewd on Linux there is not a chance in hell that you will see SolidWorks for Linux.
Conversely, Pro-E has had a Unix version available for some time now, or at least that's what I've been told. I imagine it wasn't that big of a leap for them to get it running on Linux.
Re:Good, that's one of my only reasons to stay MS! (Score:3, Informative)
Leagues less functional than Pro/E but the price is VERY good. I think it's around $300 now.
VariCad web site [varicad.com]
This Pro/E announcement is awesome news though....
LoB
Re:Wine, perhaps? (Score:5, Interesting)
AutoCAD used to be available for a number of the proprietary *nixes (Solaris, SGI IRIX, HP/UX, etc) back in the Release 10, 11, 12 (and early R13) days. People I used to know that worked at AutoDesk used to make sort of veiled hints that Microsoft put some kind of pressure on them to quit supporting alternative platforms. More or less what they were saying is that AutoDesk was told if didn't quit supporting non-Microsoft platforms that Microsoft would enter the CAD market (possibly by buying up one of AutoDesk's competitors), or at least announce that they were going to, and that would kill AutoDesk by "giving away" the product. But of course nobody in those days would dare come right out and say something like that.
Re:Wine, perhaps? (Score:2)
At Autodesk University in 1995, Autodesk, Sun, HP, SGI, & IBM were all pushing AutoCAD R13 for Unix. They had lots of demos, whitepapers, seminars, etc. Most people were still using the DOS versions of AutoCAD then (us included).
Then AutoCAD R14 came out for Windows only. Autodesk is completely in bed with Microsoft now.
Re:Wine, perhaps? (Score:1)
Re:Wine, perhaps? (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the Unix AutoCAD sales went to major accounts like government or aerospace/military. Around the time we started porting AutoCAD R13 to Unix Microsoft was making inroads selling Windows NT in those very same markets. To the pointy-haired IT managers it was a good excuse to get the engineers on the same type of systems the rest of the non-technical folks in these companies were using. And back in those days Unix workstations were priced quite high compared to WinTel hardware.
BTW, these ports were mostly paid for by the hardware manufacturers (i.e. Sun paid for the SunOS and Solaris ports, IBM for the AIX, etc.).
MS did pressure to prevent further development of a Mac port, however. One of the Mac programmers put a sign on his door: "Welcome to Autodesk--a division of Microsoft. Or it might as well be."
Nowadays the code base is so MS-centric it'd be difficult and expensive for AutoCAD to be ported to anything but Windows. And I'm sure MS would have a cow if Autodesk tried and would probably pressure to prevent, say, a Linux port. Now a Mac OS X port would be interesting. The Mac ports had a loyal following among Architects...
The threat of MS entering the CAD market was (is?) real and at one time was the biggest threat to Autodesk.
I still remember the new CEO getting rid of Ted Nelson and AMIX back in the early 90's--the thinking was that nothing would every become of this online hyperlinking stuff. Oh, well...can't win 'em all.
Re:Wine, perhaps? (Score:1)
Is it any worse than Microsoft writing an entire Java compiler/runtime, only to bastardize it to only use Windows-specific libraries?
Does the name XBox ring a bell?
Any person who's been in IT long enough will not discount anything like this Autocad threat as merely a rumor, given Microsoft's past and current behavior.
Check your facts (Score:2)
As for Ford switching to CATIA, possible but not likely. After the fallout, there will be pretty much only 2 products controlling high-end CAD--EDS and Dessault. Every large consumer product/automotive/aerospace company will be evaluating both products continuously, I'd imagine. Pro-E? Not bloody likely. Check their stock--Ford or any other big auto name isn't going to invest $250+ million in an MCAD package that might flounder any day now. The big 3 (really big 5) are perfectly happy dealing with EDS and IBM (dessault's reseller).
Linux is becoming the default in ASIC engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
It appears to go hand in hand with the fastest uniprocessor platforms looking fast compared to the fastest uniprocessor suns.
The software we use is very expensive and generally compute intensive. So it pays to run it on the fastest hardware and it pays to buy the fastest hardware when it is the cheapest. The only exceptions are tools that require 64 bit addresses to permit enough memory to be installed (E.G. IC layout). Sun still wins there.
When PCs are both the fastest and cheapest and Unix is the operating system of choice for engineers and Linux is both free and good, the preference is obvious.
We pretty much will not buy software that does not run on Linux and the ASIC tool vendors know it.
The same market forces seem to apply in here mechanical engineering.
If amd has anything to say about it... (Score:1)
Re:Linux is becoming the default in ASIC engineeri (Score:1)
Re:Linux is becoming the default in ASIC engineeri (Score:1)
I have to agree that such a change is in the works. The Linux offerings in VHDL for VHISIC programming tools for linux are impressive. I am told I-DEAS has linux support now. (I have only run it on winnt machines but my univ has a HPUX lab running it as well.) And now Pro/Engineer as well.
I think that this will make it easy for the high end design part of hightech industries to step away from MSFT so they can spend their time worrying about how to best do design tasks as opposed to manage and pay for restrictive licensing agreements. Still, I expect that office work will be done on Win32 for a long time yet, this change is a good start.
I-Deas Next? (Score:1)
I had been trying without success to get SDRC to port to linux before they were bought out. I was really pissed off when SDRC ported it to Windows and my employer took away my HP-UX.
Re:I-Deas Next? (Score:2)
We've talked to people at "the corporation formerly known as SDRC" more than once about a Linux version. In the end, they said they could only port to so many *nix platforms, so which one did we propose they supplant? We read that to mean "not likely". After all, this was an engineering company at heart (read conservative), and they weren't about to drop a few existing customers for a potential of many more...
Now as a division of EDS, we don't hold any more hope for them than before. EDS has embraced the
Re:I-Deas Next? (Score:2)
I hate to see it running under win32. Most of the color is gone, and all the additional customization features do little to improve the experience while producing bugs that lower the stability of the package...
finally! (Score:1)
From first hand experience, i know many of the pitfalls associated with using complex, resource intensive software on a windows platform. Memory leaks. Memory _limits_ (ugh!). Crash to desktops several times a day. Have to reboot after every crash. Have to restart the program every now and then to clear up memory you've been using. Having HUGE files because of the way M$ saves things.
The above refers to Solidworks, which i unfortunately have to use. Hopefully, with PTC going back to Unix (linux now), solidworks will start in that direction. Tho they're so entrenched with M$, i don't know if they have the talent or ability to actually write stable software. I guess it depends on how tightly M$ is holding their leash.
this is a damn good thing for the solid modelers and designers out there!!
--john
Pro/E Infor (Score:3, Funny)
As an aside, Cadence generally doesn't do mechanical modeling software. They do PCB design, schematic entry, simulation and of course IC design and verification.
This is news, but for most Linux users, forget about buying Pro/E. It costs big time - and the companies that use Pro/E already can afford bigtime boxes (Sparcs, etc) to run them on. Now if SolidWorks were to push into the Linux arena, things would start to get interesting...
Re:Pro/E Infor (Score:2)
Uh, dude, what about Catia, Unigraphics (the Solidworks full version, I think) and my personal arena of modeling wizardry, IDEAS from the folks at SDRC before it got bought out by the Unigraphics company. Catia is used by Chrysler (I think) and Ideas is used extensively by Ford. (I'm in the Auto industry, what can I say.) Ford MAY be going to Catia in its new projects since the SDRC buyout.
Anyway, back on topic. CAD packages are in real need of some linux support. The Catia and Ideas workstation in our office run on Solaris, on overpriced leased hardware. I will admit that Unix has impressed me greatly. It almost never crashes, even when using a buggy program, and I can usually remote login and kill the app that is hanging my tube. I hope that other CAD software mfg'ers follow the trend. It would really cut our costs and hopefully make hardware upgrades more frequent.
Re:Pro/E Infor (Score:2)
They'll be on Linux in no time. IMHO.
There is VariCAD for lighter weight CAD work now. 2D and 3D.
LoB
RE: Solidworks on Linux. (Score:2)
Anyone running MCAD on UNIX is a ripe target for them. Less informed shops that are feeling the one box and it had better be win32 pressure is their target.
Leveraging the win32 intergrated applications is key to their gain in market share. (Which BTW is all they care about.)
They want to be the MCAD extension to Office, not the best tool.
Re: Solidworks on Linux. (Score:2)
LoB
Re: Solidworks on Linux. (Score:2)
All of the major MCAD packages use OpenGL for their graphics render engines. OpenGL is good at this. Today I would wager that DirectX whatever version is good as well.
Not an issue for the minor players, but the big boys are still cross platform.
MCAD and high-end analysis packages run on the UNIX platforms and OpenGL enables this.
BTW you can include on your list SolidEdge, Autodesk Inventor, IronCAD (or whatever they are calling it now), and CADKEY. Autodesk and CADKEY used to be UNIX based, but that ended in the early 90's with ACAD 12 (I think) and CADKEY 6 or 7.
Basically all the midrange stuff out there right now is built using the MFC. All of it wants to be high-end CAD. None of it is going to be.
Re: Solidworks on Linux. (Score:2)
I think it was AutoDesk bought into Microsofts "write to Win32 and have Windows AND UNIX" way back when. Bristal,Mainsoft and a couple of others were allowed to licences MSFT code to enable Win32/MFC to run compile and run on UNIX. After a few big CAD companies ported from UNIX to MFC, Microsoft pulled the rug out from under the companies providing the underlying runtimes. I think Mainsoft was the only one left standing. Their sole existance is because then needed to show in court that Bristol wasn't being targetted. Only thing was, Microsoft charged MainSoft tons for their Windows source license but turned around and paid them big bucks to port IE to Solaris and HP(?).
They are smart bastards but not technically, only business-wise. The world finally caught on that a networked computer must be peer2peer capable, secure, and robust(not crash daily). Microsoft windows is such a pig that it imploads under any reasonable load.
BTW, I think AutoDesk realized the mud they are in and started porting a bunch of stuff to JAVA. Then Microsoft pulled the JAVA rug out from under them too (requires them to install the JVM now). JAVA may not be best for all apps but it's much easier going from Java to say Qt than MFC to ANYTHING.
Looks like there's quite a self-imposed ceiling on these CAD companies and if they want to exist in 5 years, they had better get off of MFC soon. IMHO.
LoB
Re:Pro/E Infor (Score:2)
Others in this category are SDRC I-DEAS and Catia.
I-DEAS is used by Ford and Toyota.
Catia was used to design the Boeing 767 Jetliner.
These pieces of software are powerful because you can model pretty much anything you want in 3D space and assign it material properties. Then you can do various stress/strain, fluid mechanical, vibro-acoustical and other such Finite Element modelling. This saves you big money because the requirement for building models is reduced.
Furthermore, these products can help you design the manufacturing process, once again reducing your costs.
Still, this is just the tip of the iceberg and I have probably used only 5% of the functionality of products like these. (I am an engineering student.)
Re:Pro/E Infor (Score:2)
Correction, it was the 777 not 767. My bad.
not free (Score:2)
Maybe a bit late for PTC... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personnally, I'm leaning towards SolidWorks. The licensing costs are smaller than those of the competition, and it's very pleasant to work with. Very Windows-centric, but the interface is fast to get accustomed to.
And it impossible to pass by Catia V5. The precedent versions were almost exclusively Unix-based, but they also made the switch to NT. The interface is really nice (reminiscent of XP, but a few years before). Pleasant to use, but V5 is still being developped, so the stability on the latest release is not always top notch.
There's also Autodesk's Inventor, although I never used it personally.
Of course, then there's the support for third-parties modules. This can hurt initialy the introduction of a new platform (CAD or HW).
Kudos to PTC for bringing their product to Linux. I know there's been some people asking them to do it for a few years now. But one has to wonder if it's because they feel some pressure to maintain their share of the market.
Re:Maybe a bit late for PTC... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe a bit late for PTC... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe a bit late for PTC... (Score:2)
I agree with you on that last point. Especially when you need to use a couple of variations of the same function (like draw a circle by it's diameter, then 3 points, then center+radius, etc.), the command line is preferable. But AutoCad as a whole has mostly been left behind in terms of ease of modifying a model, etc. It still does the work with older drawings, but as soon as you don't have any (or don't mind redoing them in something a bit more sane), you'll find you don't want to use it again. Pro/E, Catia, SolidWorks, IDEAS, to name only those with which I have first-hand experience, are the way to go as far as modeling goes. For floor plans, AutoCad still has some traction, because it's ok for 2D drawings. But for 3D parts (even simple ones), forget about AutoCad (or use at least use MechanicalDesktop/Inventor if you can, preferably one of the 4 I mentionned earlier). It means not having to update different views by hand (and possibly missing one or introducing errors), having a much better grasp on the shape for odd shapes, and all around easier modifications (because you have a tree of all the features which form the part, so you can modify an earlier feature and the subsequent features will update themselves), instead of only lines and arcs in AutoCad.
Rapier, the end of the comment is not meant to you (as you seem to already know that), but more to the people for who AutoCad is one of the only MCAD programs they heard of (as it's pretty much dead now, except for old drawings).
Re:Maybe a bit late for PTC... (Score:1)
By the way, I've used mechanical desktop and was serious unimpressed. If you're going to do 3D it's a great improvement from AutoCAD, but it's nowhere near as usable as Pro/E.
Re:Maybe a bit late for PTC... (Score:2, Interesting)
The discussions abour SolidWorks and AutoCAD have their place, but putting a whole tractor in electronic form (I work for Deere & Co), with every bend in the sheet metal and bump on the transmission housing, requires more that those products can deliver. Is it worth it? It is when all pieces fit the first time, with no reworking of tools or expensive trial pieces for fit-up checks only.
While ProE is far from perfect, it is closer than the other tools I have tried. I was certainly sad the day I lost HP-UX and moved to WindowsNT, however. Windows2000 hasn't eased my pain.
I am a Linux user at home, and would jump at the chance to use it at work for ProE. I don't know the the IS group in a large corporation will be able to be that open minded, but I certainly welcome the change to give it a try.
New Horizons (Score:1)
Interesting news.. (Score:1)
Again - it frustrates me that where I work sometimes wants to do stuff like this (especially where the software costs more than the hardware) on a cheap budget..
I had inititally suggested that they buy some 2nd hand SGI's but realised that I would be the sole person responsible for looking after the systems (only person at work who even knows UNIX) but also realised that most of the people who would be using Pro/E could hardly use Windows.. let alone IRIX!
Hasn't it already been ported? (Score:1)
Now if only SDRC I-DEAS was available for Linux
:)
Re:Hasn't it already been ported? (Score:2)
I thought that Pro E had already been ported to Linux because of something I read on SDRC's chat board.
Although I'm not a regular Pro-E user, Its great news for Mechanical Engineers / Designers. In my opinion, the greatest advantage of running CAD software on a *NIX box is that I can more easily write scripts to do my work. PERL is right there at the command line, and makes it easy to dump a list of 3D point coordinates into a macro for creating or modifying parts. Yes, you can do the same stuff in windows, but I think we can all agree it's easier with Unix.
Congrats Parametric Technology!
Re:Hasn't it already been ported? (Score:2)
But you're right on about having I-DEAS and other CAD packages on *nix. You can do an amazing amount of automation on the *unix platform that is a pain in the ass on Windows. I'm especially familiar about automating things for I-DEAS after working with for 5 years.
Bad News for Sun? (Score:1)
Re:Bad News for Sun? (Score:1)
Way Cool! (Score:2)
Simply Awesome (Score:1)
Look at Ansys: Pro-Linux since 10-01! (Score:1)
ANSYS [ansys.com] 6.0 Coupled with the 32-bit Linux OS Provides Cost Efficiency and Enhanced Speed-to-Market
Canonsburg, PA - October 31, 2001 - ANSYS®, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANSS), the global innovator of simulation software and technologies aimed at optimizing the customers' product development process, today announced that the new ANSYS® 6.0 simulation software suite is fully compatible with the Linux Red Hat 7.1 Operating System that features the Intel® Processor Family (IPF).
The Linux OS provides ANSYS 6.0 users with a powerful, flexible and open-architecture platform that can use clustering technology to handle the super-computing loads required for simulation engineering applications. Linux provides ANSYS 6.0 users a reliable cost-effective, multiple-user support tool that provides engineers with a platform to share development efforts early in the process, decreasing the number of design iterations. Because the Linux system updates occur quickly and openly, users do not have to wait for new vendor updates or releases, saving ANSYS 6.0 users time and money.
ANSYS 6.0 marks the first formal release for the Linux 32-bit OS. Future updates to ANSYS 6.0 are also expected to support the Linux 64-bit OS.
"Our goal is to continuously provide ANSYS customers with state-of-the-art software solutions that are compatible with a variety of operating systems. Linux has quickly become a standard in many engineering environments and can provide ANSYS 6.0 users with the open architecture they need to complete their tasks in timely and cost-effective manner," stated Michael Wheeler, vice president of marketing for ANSYS, Inc.
About LINUX OS
Linux is a modern operating system that runs on 32-bit architecture, uses preemptive multitasking, protected memory, supports multiple users, and has rich support for networking, including TCP/IP networking. Linux runs all the applications a Unix server system should run, including web servers like Apache, mail serving software like Sendmail, and database servers like Oracle, Informix, or more open applications like MySQL and Postgres. Linux supports a wide range of file system types, and through programs like Samba can even seamlessly replace NT as a Windows file server. Through the use of clustering technology, Linux can scale up to handle the super computing loads required by many scientific/engineering applications, and required in high availability environments.
About ANSYS, Inc.
ANSYS, Inc., founded in 1970 as Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., develops and globally markets engineering simulation software and technologies widely used by engineers and designers across a broad spectrum of industries, including aerospace, automotive, manufacturing, electronics and biomedical. Headquartered at Southpointe in Canonsburg, PA, ANSYS, Inc. employs 400 people and focuses on the development of open and flexible solutions that enable users to analyze designs directly on the desktop, providing a common platform for fast, efficient and cost-conscious product development, from design concept to final-stage testing and validation. ANSYS, Inc. distributes its ANSYS®, DesignSpace®, AI* Solutions(TM) and ICEM-CFD Engineering products through a network of channel partners in 37 countries, in addition to its own direct sales offices in 18 strategic locations throughout the world. To address the latest in Web-based solutions, ANSYS, Inc. provides e-CAE, a solution designed specifically to address the need for "surge capacity" often required during the design verification phase, as well as providing a low-cost entry point for consultants and occasional users.
CONTACT:
Dawn Tappy
ANSYS, Inc.
PR Manager
globalpr@ansys.com
Note to editors: ANSYS is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Re:Look at Ansys: Pro-Linux since 10-01! (Score:1)
WooHoo! (Score:1)
Lite version (Score:2)
Could this software... (Score:1)
/me is splattered with tomatos into oblivion.
Re:Could this software... (Score:1)
I am a mech engineer, and the majority of my day is spent driving this software (I also the resident consultant).
Pro/E has been trying to get their app to use several computers for a couple of years. They currently have a menu pick for "distrubited computing". It doesn't do any thing, but its there.
At the pro/user conf. in Orlando (1998?)they had a cluster of Sun's machines running an analysis.
Mechanica (the FEA package)is supposed to support multi-processors, but I don't have a mp box to test it on.
Hopefully they get something working soon. We have bunches of boxes doing nothing most of the day, it would be nice to run some large simulatons/animations distributed.
Re:Could this software... (Score:1)
Strangely this guy may not be a troll.
Sure I am.
Seriously though, after posting I realized that the question was slightly valid. But I'm sure thats what every beowulf-cluster troller starts to think after a while.
For suppliers, it's all about cost. (Score:1)
Would you switch? (Score:2)
Maybe just the thought of this will encourage other ports.
Their next generation of products will be built around the WildFire release of Pro/e. This is no big deal because it is in the press release. Interestingly though, they use the M$ IE components on win32 for their web enabled functionality, but use Mozilla for everything else.
Someone around here said mozilla was an important project once... (they were right!)
I think it is cool to see Mozilla being used in such a way. The fact that it was there and capable paved the way for a Linux port that will do anything the win32 one does. (Other UNIXes enjoy that now.)
Makes you wonder why we need IE doesn't it?
Cadence for Linux (Score:1)
There is pressure from many of the large companies to get some of this design software available for Linux. In the instance of Candence, it should have better performance on x86 machines than on Sparc, with the added benefit of cheaper hardware. Word has it that a version of Cadence for Redhat may be available early next year. The sticking point is that 64-bit is really needed for large layouts, so it might be a while before a stable kernel and cpu are available which Cadence will bless.
Your video card (Score:2)
That is where Will frag for bandwith starts making some sense.
"There must be some fairly credible requests..." (Score:4, Informative)
All it takes is one request from someone who will purchase enough seats.
IBM [ibm.com]'s Tivoli [tivoli.com] TME10 enterprise management suite (for all I know it's called something else now, but I'm too lazy to check) is supported on OS/2 primarily because of a single customer, the UK postal system. Everyone knew it would have to happen eventually, since IBM bought Tivoli and still had a strong commitment to OS/2 back in those days -- except, of course, for making it not suck. They didn't have that strong a commitment.
Incidentally, the linux port of tivoli was originally done by a support engineer with too much time on his hands. Ah, the wonders of using CORBA and perl.
Re:"There must be some fairly credible requests... (Score:2)
Poor SGI (Score:1)
Combine this with Weta (sp) in New Zealand buying 150 shinny new Linux workstations, from IBM, and you really have to think that SGI didn't make a very smart business decision.
This is a big announcement (Score:2)
Thought they already did it.. (Score:3, Informative)
Great news! (Score:2)
One baby step closer to getting a 2D/3D drafting program to Linux like AutoDesk Mechanical Desktop and Inventor.
OrCAD for Linux would be great, although I've almost got SDT/PCB386 working under DOSEmu and VMWare. 800x600 with VMWare, 1024x768 for DOSEmu. :-)
Possibly the only thing holding my office at Windows is MPLAB ICE 2000. The damn thing won't install under WINE but works great under VMWare or Win4Lin. Office is licked now that StarOffice is here and Mozilla or Konq does all we need for web browsing.
Pro/Desktop Express (Score:1)
OS costs are immaterial, Windows "good enough"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since then, Linux has taken over, with the ability to run on the same cheap hardware. But now it doesn't matter as much- the savings are in the hundreds, rather than thousands, or tens of thousands per year, per seat. Compared to the cost of these apps and the salaries of the people using them, that's a drop in the bucket. Windows may not be cheap or good compared to Linux, but in the overall scheme of things it's cheap enough, and good enough.
Re:OS costs are immaterial, Windows "good enough". (Score:2)
Everything you described is something you can have with Windows -- well maybe not the X11 remote logins, but there is remote desktop, which is actually quite good.
I can tunnel one app from one unix box to another unix box without exporting the desktop. I can do this over the internet. I can leave a box running for 3 months and never reinstall apps. I can run the same source code on 3 different architectures with minimal changes. I can avoid giving money to a company that uses fear based tactics to make people pay for the same software 3 times.
ProE taking themselves out of the research market (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this may be too little too late as far as academic users of the software are concerned. A couple of years ago, ProE files generated by the education version of the software started to not be capatible with the full version software, cutting off university research groups that wanted to be able to design things with ProE and have their files merged with bigger systems.
I'm part of a research group that was fighting for our research collaboration with several other universities and national lab to use ProE for the design and integration of the sub-systems. However we lost the fight when it was realized that the educational version (cheap at $5k per seat) wasn't capatible with the super-duper version that the lab has.
On a similar note... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry if it's a bit incoherrent, it's been a long night and I'm exhausted.
Re:Written by Russians, used by Lockheed Martin (Score:1)
Grow up, will ya? What would those russians put in the source code? A warezed clone of tetris?
Re:ICEM (Score:2)
This might affect the use of Alias Studio in Pro/e shops that convert to Linux.
No remote X11 on Alias products, so either they stay with commercial UNIX, win32 or use another alternative like ICEM.