Pro/Engineer for Linux Poll 80
BTT writes "Parametric Technology is taking a poll on whether or not they should port Pro/E to Linux. Check out www.ptc.com and cast a vote. " For those of who aren't familar with Parametric, they make one of the premier CAD applications.
Re:Don't vote unless you use the software normally (Score:1)
Why? Because I've had the pleasure of using other expensive, specialized software like Interleaf (curiously enough, made by another Waltham, MA company) and would like to do so again.
A Linux version would make that possible at the little company where I work.
Nothing sucks more than being told that because your favorite application is too expensive, the company is going to stick you with some wholly inappropriate tool for creating decent technical documentation, like Word97. Never mind that the extra labor costs involved in using lame tools soon outweigh the extra shelf price for quality S/W; many managers don't figure that one out in time.
What they may realize soon enough is that extensive Linux application choices let them save $$ on the OS and make efficient use of older hardware at the same time.
Since engineering-types seem to make faster inroads than techwriters in the corporate software adoption fight, I for one would be grateful to ride in on CAD users' coattails. The next step is that when I get the tool of my preference, it makes it that much easier for the next person down the line to benefit from my good fortune.
IMHO, the demand for applications is recursive: even if the early demand is a tad bogus, the appearance of strong demand should fuel further application development for Linux. In a worst-case scenario, by the time the suits realize the original demand might have been exaggerated, the market for Linux apps will have become quite real and quite apparent to just about everyone.
Don't vote unless you use the software normally (Score:3)
Vote? If your and ME (Score:4)
Strangely enough my mom used to work for them, they translate there software into many languages and the company is unix based (my mom doesn't like VI, and complains endlessly...)(also tells a good story about them buying a civic and taking it apart to model for "pro engine.. but I digress...)
The software is already available on UNIX and was only fairly recently ported to NT (Due to competion from "Solid Works" so a linux version shouldn't be hard.
I really doubt anyone on slashdot is really interested in buying this software, so I don't know how responsible it would be to vote. If they did the port and there was no demand, they might discontinue it and when Linux has more completely taken over the Workstation OS market, they'll probably think twice about going over.
I wonder if you can parametrically model software?
I agree (Score:1)
Also, whats the betting that the moment they get it finished, and the news is posted here, huge numbers of OS fanatics will be saying "bah, its not opensource, we'll have something thats better within 3 weeks" even though they probably voted yes on the original poll.
I voted "yes" because... (Score:1)
We've recently gotten in a couple of NT boxes with which we plan to run a beta of Catia 5 for Win2K. I, along with the other sysadmin, have assured my boss that this will not work well at all. Pro/E on Linux, on the other hand, certainly sounds interesting. At least one unknown that could cause instability (the OS) would be out of the picture then. (I don't like NT, can you tell?)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Re: Unix has less TCO I think (Score:1)
Sysadmin cost ~ TCO is an incomplete consideration of the situation.
Time costs money.
Re:PTC (Score:1)
Re:I disagree (somewhat) (Score:1)
The following discussion is for open source programs only.
There is no way that a product comparable to Pro/Engineer, SDRC or even the lowly AutoCAD will be available for some time to come. Good 3D hardware support is extremely rare, if at all, and the software products I have mentioned are EXTREMELY COMPLEX. Far more complex than say PhotoShop and Gimp. There are halfway viable 2D CAD options, but they tend to have very different (even confusing) UIs as they look, feel and operate quite differently than I would expect. And don't get me started on the horrid DXF support (of which I made an open source library for, to be released soon), which don't support 3D in any manner.
Here's the thing: (Score:1)
But still, don't vote unless you plan to buy it. They're obviously looking for demand here; don't make them regret their decision later on, or it's likely we'll never hear from them again even if there is huge demand.
Yes, that would be great (Score:1)
Imagine a Pro/E "Server" on an alpha and a nubmer of Pro/E GLX clients (preferably Intel). This could become a reality in the near future.
I'm saving up my loose change... (Score:1)
$8000 is a lot of pennies, though...
Autocad is NOT the CAD world (Score:1)
I work for PTC (Score:1)
Re:Go Mainstream! Port AutoCAD & 3DStudio (Score:1)
I wouldn't say most of the CAD world runs AutoCAD. AutoCAD is very popular, especially with smaller companies. Pro Engineer is also very popular and has more capabilities.
Boeing uses Catia, and I hear that automotive companies use Catia also.
Re:Who will do Support? (Score:1)
Umm... Linux is open-sourced. They CAN fix it themselves, then distribute a kernel patch. If it's good, it'll get absorbed into the regular kernel tree. Haven't you been paying attention?
What happens when they slam headlong into a bug in NT or one of the commercial UNIXes? They wait for the vendor to fix it, and tell their customers to sit tight. So even if they waited for the kernel developers to fix it, it's no worse than what they're doing now.
/. effect on polls... (Score:2)
Please stop posting these things on slashdot. Admittedly, these sorts of polls aren't scientific at all, but these companies do use them to judge the opinions of their target market. It's safe to say that if you didn't happen across this poll by browsing PTC's site yourself, you're not in the target market, so you shouldn't vote.
Keep in mind, also, that by posting these things on this site, it's really easy for a site to look at the server logs and simply reject all votes that came from a /. referral, so there's very little point to it, anyway.
Re:Side benefits (Score:1)
Re:Lower cost of ownership - NO (Score:1)
Re:Another Distro? Like Corel? (Score:1)
PTC walks hand in hand with microsoft... they pull the same exact types of tricks on thier competitors. They love microsoft and love having thier name near MS's.
Oh, and a decent seat of Pro/E costs $24 grand. The cheapest is $6000 right now.
Pro/E for Linux (Score:3)
The only issue right now is having drivers for high-end 3d cards available for Linux. Even having 3d support for a RIVA TNT card would be great. Pro/E requires HEAVY DUTY graphics support. Hopefully this is not too far behind.
I agree! (Score:3)
My personal opinion is that Linux isn't ready for Pro yet. Linux doesn't support the necessary 3d hardware yet, so a version of Pro (or any other serious CAD package,) for linux would be quite limited.
Maybe in a few years...
sKroz
Re:Lower cost of ownership - NO (Score:1)
You make it sound like a WinNT network maintains itself, or that good WinNT admins somehow cost less than Unix admins. That's nonesense. At least in my experience, it is just as difficult to configure and run a WinNT network as a Unix network, and admins for WinNT aren't any easier or cheaper to hire.
Now that common Unix sysadmin tools are appearing for Linux, it's becoming pretty much equivalent to commercial Unix at the workstation level--at a much lower cost.
A Linux port would be a good alternative for a company which is currently running Unix but needs to reduce its costs. A lot less retraining is involved--both for admins and staff--and Linux will integrate much more smoothly into the existing network than WinNT.
Re:MCAD in general on Linux (Score:1)
And I do know of one designer here that appreciates the distributed computing feature of UNIX workstations. It's saved his butt a few times. But that doesn't seem to sink in.
This is also a sticking point with some other analysis software that is available only on Linux, and HP computers. The HP computers are so damned expensive, we only have one which crawls due to multiple users. But to use Linux, we would have to have another machine for numerous engineers which would end up costing as much (with better performance I would imagine). And then there is the "support another OS" complaint. So far, the decision is to wait for an NT port which has been promised for the last two years. Yeesh.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
AutoCAD is small potatoes (Score:1)
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
PTC (Score:2)
I was once offered a job as system administrator at PTC in Japan... turned them down, but considering where I am now, I should have taken them up on it...
Anyway, their apps run to several thousand dollars a license, so any place that's running them is going to have plenty of money to throw around, which makes me wonder a bit about the demand for Pro/E on Linux.
Re:MCAD in general on Linux (Score:1)
You guys could just provide a preconfigured Vmware file provided the user has an NT license, and they would be good to go. Maybe this could be a user group, or reseller thing if the lawyers have a problem with the license.... Maybe you are SDRC, maybe not... Need a beta tester?
Cheers,
MCAD in general on Linux (Score:5)
There are a few big unix based MCAD packages right now doing everything that they can to get their software to be windows NT friendly. I find it interesting that these companies will give up the strengths that the UNIX development brought them in exchange for compatability, and the "chance" to sell the same software cheaper.
In the last few years the CAD market has matured such that high priced UNIX workstations are no longer seen as a value. Linux could very well change this. (I for one really hope this happens!) Nobody minds buying a PC, but a Sun or SGI machine is a tough sell these days. Basically there has to be no other alternative, otherwise the sale will goto an NT machine.
There are a number of smaller, newer competetors in the MCAD arena, and they are entirly based on NT, and they are using "Sell lots of cheap software and make money later" business model. They are totally embracing the Microsoft development, marketing, and implementation model. The older established MCAD vendors need something new as a differentator; otherwise, they will just continue to lose market share until they own niche markets. Linux based systems could change this, but there are some things that need to be addressed before software ports are truly attractive to these companies, and their users.
1. Good solid 3d Open-GL. This is a requirement. Solid modelers consume graphic resources when they are not computing model geometry. A users performance is directly related to the 3D capabilities of the workstation in question.
2. Office compatiblity. Many engineers now have to schedule, e-mail, and perform basic office tasks using M$ software. This is one of the primary reasons UNIX machines are being displaced. Most, if not all of the companies do not like two machines on one engineers desk. Many engineers do not really want to know anything about the software they use. It gets in the way. Not that they are not capable users, they just want to be users only. When M$ wins on the office desktop, UNIX in the R&D department is on borrowed time.
3. Standard Linux distros. The biggest selling points, in this market (true or not
- Ability to standardize on inexpensive hardware.
- Ease of Administration. I know that they do not yet realize what this one will cost them in the long run, but for now this is key.
- Compatability. (also mentioned above.)
4. Good user tools. What does the average user do? Get good OpenSource tools that work together across Distros that accomplish common user tasks. Easy stuff should be easy. (Printing, Plotting, moving files, finding files that sort of thing.) M$ currently makes easy stuff easy for the average Joe user. Problem is Hard things are Impossible.
These MCAD comapnies that come from UNIX roots have a fair number of reasons to port also.
1. Marketing. If any one of them actually does it, then they will get a lot of attention in a market that generally is hard to get to listen.
2. Absolute control of the User Interface. The Windows GUI was meant for the average computer user. All the Solid Modelers I know really know their package. A few clicks here and there matter. If a package must conform to the windows "Look and Feel" then their ability to compete on this basis is sharply limited.
3. Leverage of existing tools and technology. X windows is great. Someday customers better realize that they could purchase a few very capable servers, and let their power users use them, from any machine in the building. NT does not allow for Network computing, and this market needs it.
4. Ability to push compute envelope beyond current Intel Technology. Right now if you top out your new shiny NT workstation with a large assembly, you are stuck. If you were using X you could just rlogin into a more powerful machine for that task, or maybe you could go with an Alpha machine, or maybe PowerPC. Either way, top performance would be available to those that are willing to pay for it. NT currently is a dead end here right now. BTW Cad performs poorly on Multi Processor machines due to its serial nature.
5. The other NT based competetors will have to do one hell of a re-write in order to compete, or compete on other strengths. Their reliance on pure Microsoft tools will insure this. Using Linux correctly will raise the bar in many areas that are currently taken for granted by much of this market.
--Happily running MCAD and Design Apps on an SGI.
Re:Pro/E for Linux (Score:1)
For the longest time, PTC only supported NT on Intel hardware
Do not confuse PTC (Parametric Technologies) [ptc.com] with one of it's product lines, Pro/E [ptc.com].
Pro/E is NT based right now, but PTC owns more than one CAD/CAM company. Not too many know this.
Last year, ICEM Technologies [icem.com], makers of ICEM DDN [ptc.com], a high end UNIX only (now we support NT too) CAD/CAM suite was bought from Control Data Corperation [cdc.com] by Parametric Technologies [ptc.com]. This was not primary for ICEM DDN, the CAD suite, but for it's high end surfacing application, ICEM Surf [ptc.com] which has long been coveted by PTC because of its desire to integrate with Pro/E.
ICEM DDN, which is quite popular in Germany and in other European Engineering Firms as well as high end European Car Companies (Ferrari, for instance), is wholey owned by PTC.
So when you say that PTC is UNIX only or has been UNIX [sgi.com] only, you're incorrect. I work for ICEM and subsequently PTC which might I add, treats its developers/programmers quite well (free pop machine, free snacks, and free beer on fridays for those of age).
-Zebulun
Re:MCAD in general on Linux (Score:1)
Go Mainstream! Port AutoCAD & 3DStudio MAX (Score:2)
Most of the CAD world runs on AutoCad, despite encroachment by some third parties. While it is possible to use a 3D part product and convert to ACAD format, no vendor will work with you. Pure Acad, or HIT THE ROAD, JACK. Not surprising, considering even AutoDesk doesn't have a firm handle on their version control. For Indy Contractors, this means you use the AutoDesk product, or you don't eat.
AutoCAD desperately needs to be ported to Linux, as it would remove the hoary need to get shafted twice: Once by AutoCAD and again by MS.
Also, 3DS MAX offers network rendering capacity, but again, runs only on MS OSs. Imagine the speed, capacity, and cost per frame a render farm could manage if you could load a render client on a low cost Open Source OS! AutoDesk would have more business than they could keep up with, as every dog and his master decided to go into the business because the barrier to entry had been considerably lowered.
Opinions? Does anyone other than me see this as a GOOD THING (tm)?
Re:Lower cost of ownership - NO (Score:1)
--paul
Where exactly do they talk about linux port? (Score:1)
noticed that they have been slashdoted?
Re:Don't vote unless you use the software normally (Score:1)
Pro-E is better for administrator's but I-DEAS is easier for users.
However, Pro-E is *the* standard in MCAD.
Who would vote no? (Score:1)
The only thing I can come up with is that it might "dilute" support for the other versions, but they already seem to have Unix [ptc.com] support, so it's almost a non-issue...
looks like the poll is over :( (Score:1)
won't happen -not with Autodesk! (Score:1)
now having a guilt trip... (Score:1)
I worry about this, are we not influencing the poll of what should be a sample of CAD enthusiasts? And surely if we do this too much then it will become apparent that web polls cannot be taken without a pinch of salt.
I expect most of you will say, what the hell, let's just promote Linux in this way, "After all Microsoft have used underhand tactics left, right and center and look where it's got them.", but then I can respond that Bill may be very rich, and it's only because of this fact that he can pay all those lawyers to keep the DoJ off his back.
Linux is hell of an OS, can't we just let it speak for itself?
Re:Vote yes because... (Score:1)
Re:Another Distro? Like Corel? (Score:1)
Not True (Score:1)
This is just not true, my company was running pro eng on two RiscStation NEC for three years (MIPS based), we moved to Intel because Micros~1 decided to dump NT MIPS and never really supported it in the first place.
-ShieldWolf
P.S.Pro Eng was also a Unix based app befoire that.
Shamefully, the trend is going the other way. (Score:1)
AutoCAD used to be available (up to about version 13) for *NIX. No mas.
Bently MicroStation used to be ported to about 5 *NIXs. Bently has totally abandoned the *NIX platform and is now *only* developing for NT. They're adamant about it "just not being worth" the "massive effort" to port to Linux. I've been back and forth with their marketeers about this, and haven't been able to explain to the idiots what a make file is. Maybe they've fired ALL their *NIX guys.....
I suspect Bully Boy must be involved in this at some level. Inquires to developers about porting their stuff to Linux are met by the same spew of FUD every time about how Winbloze is the only platform they'll support because they'd have to multiply their entire development effort by n to support every environment out there if they triedto cover more than Winbloze and that would break them. This is seen as a company-breaking expense!
So I've pretty much given up hope of seeing manymore ports to Linux. Everything *I've* been interested in seems to be going the other way.
And yes, NT on the desktop is *definately* a threat to *NIX in the R&D world.
Re:Lower cost of ownership - NO (Score:1)
ignore the $500 or $450 . The real cost
of ownership is down time, time I spend
looking at the BSOD which cost money
now on average NT goes down at least
once every other day, Generally I lose
the last 20 minutes work so say a round
40 minutes at $75 per hour 220 working days
per year thats $5500 per workstation per year
now a good UNIX sysadmin may cost you $50K more
than your NT admin types but if you have more
then 10 Boxes then It pays to go Linux
Invalid, too many wrong assumptions. (Score:1)
They assume most unix workstation users will also have a NT pc for email, browsing, and office apps. Then added 40% of the cost of a pc to every unix system (hardware, maintenance and support). My work gave me a NT pc and a sun. I put linux on the pc, use it remotely from the sun, and run cool eyecandy screensavers on it's display.
They only looked at commercial Unix hardware: Sun, HP, and SGI. They did not look at any intel based unices. They did not look at Linux, nor any BSD variant.
They based the unix hardware costs on list prices, not the usual corperate discounts.
They claim unix users spend 4.6 hours per week on workstation self-support. I don't give users root access, even on their desktops. There's nothing the users can do to ``support'' the station.
They mention the third party applications needed to manage NT networks, but don't consider the costs.
Lower cost of ownership (Score:3)
As a former employee to one of PTC's largest customers I can seem the immediate benefit of porting ProE to Linux. It will cost a lot less!!!
Instead of buying $20,000 HP or Sun machines you can by a $5,000-10,000 Intel machine. Then instead of paying MS $500 a seat for Windows NT you pay $0 for Linux licenses.
So lets say you have 4,000 MCAD engineers. Your regular cost would be (20K * 4K) + (.5K * 4K) = 82K and with the Linux solution it would be (10K * 4K) + (0 * 4K) = 40K. What business in their right mind wouldn't want to knock their costs in half.
Re:Shamefully, the trend is going the other way. (Score:2)
About a year and a half ago, M$ made a major investment in PTC to make Pro/Engineer run BEST on NT. The same was done with other MCAD companies, to persuade them to only develop for M$. As has been noted earlier, there is a lot of money in licensing this type of software, and M$ wants a cut through development fees.
I lamented the loss of AutoCAD from the Mac world, when it was on R12. The architectural CAD world revolved around the Mac platform. Microsoft persuaded AutoDesk to pull the Mac version (and later the poorly outfited Unix version) and only develop for Windoze. After using Autocad R13 & 14, I no longer feel the pain of this loss! It sucks!
Pro/Engineer on the other hand, was designed, and still works best on Unix. When Microsoft dumped a lot of money on PTC, Pro/E on NT was an abomination, a mere charicture of Pro/E on a real platform like HP-UX, Solaris, or Irix.
Many other CAD companies had started to move to solid rendering kernels that were designed to only run on Windows NT or 9x. This reduced their development cost, as they didn't have to develop the solid modeling code themselves, and could concentrate on user interface and other value added features. With the reduced cost of development, license costs dropped and a full scale CAD on NT pricewar erupted.
Many PHB's bought into this new commodity market for MCAD, and decided not to re-up on expensive seats like Pro/E. My former employer decided to not eschew Pro/E, as we had accumulated several years of modeled parts (legacy data), and instead force Pro/E on NT as the standard. The plain truth is that Pro/E *STILL* sucks on NT! But marketing hype makes it sell easily as a more inexpensive equivalent to Pro/E on Unix.
Now, I'm holding on to my outdated SGI box until they pry it from my cold dead fingers, at least until I can make a case for running Pro/E and *nix on a cheap comodity PC.
-- Len
Re:Vote? If your and ME (Score:1)
Recently, the UI has been "modernized" with dialog boxes, etc.. The concept was to take the best of windows UI features and combine them with the menu driven aproach that made Pro/E very eficient and easy to use.
Pro/E has reached about its fullest level of maturity at this point and porting to another platform would be realatively easy. The question is whether or not there is enough demand to justify the cost of supporting it (testing is expensive).
Re: Unix has less TCO I think (Score:1)
Re: Unix has less TCO I think (Score:1)
Re:now having a guilt trip... (Score:1)
While the Linux community discusses killer apps the kernel and driver hackers can still work on improving Linux.
Perhaps convincing companies to port their products to Linux will get the attention of even more capable people.
It's answer to the unrelenting chokehold that 1 company has on how we interface with our computers
Follow through to it's logical conclusion (Score:1)
was atleast some demand for it already. And, it would be quite simple since there are unix ports
of it. All that's left is hardware support.
Also, if you consider what you said, that these licenses cost so much money, I'm sure companies
would love to save where they can. When you get
a job at one of these places that use PRO/E,
you'll see that they try to save money where
they can. I'm sure if they could save atleast $300/machine just by cancelling NT, they would.
Side benefits (Score:1)
Hopefully, if PTC ports to linux (which would probably mean typing "make"), then they would
be in a position to persuade Elsa to do the same.
PTC is huge. They would be key to have on our side.
Vote yes because... (Score:1)
2. It's not something that's going to cost them
a lot of money to do. From what I've seen, it
looks as if it was built with portability in mind.
And, there are already unix versions so more than
likely it's a matter of tweaking and typing make.
3. I've talked with PTC consultants and they are
fully aware of Linux and say that everyone asks
them about Linux ports. I think this poll is to
try to get more people out of the woodwork.
4. It will benefit them and Linux as a whole. They
will sell more because going with them and Linux
is so much more cost effective. And, Linux will
benefit by seeing more hardware accel vendor support.
Personally, I think they are going to port regardless of what the poll says simply because the consultants get asked all the time about Linux ports. And it's also a "first to market" thing.
Who, if not me? (Score:1)
It would be plenty responsible for me to vote; I administer a CAD lab at a university. Most of the students in here are mechanical engineering undergraduates. There is a ProE class in here twice a week. And most of the machines in the room are PCs that dual boot Linux and NT.
Re:PTC (Score:1)
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I work at a fairly large gov't installation. Odd as it may sound, money is very tight when it comes to IT budgets.
My shop is all Unix (Solaris, HP/UX). However, concidering the cost per workstation, the PHB's have brought up the idea of turning to WinNT. The hardware price lures them. Thankfully, the user base isn't so keen. So in my case, I believe my shop is safe (for now). But it's not the first time I've seen this brought up. And, in other shops within the site, they do use WinNT instead.
Now... I'm a big Linux fan. But I'm not sure I'm ready to give up my Sparcs for Pentiums. But if it avoids WinNT, then by all means. Bring on the port!
I voted "yes" too... (Score:2)
Moreover let's consider this simple thing: Linux is a free OS, paying for it is always less expensive compared to other OS. The costs of starting up a design activity would be reduced of 20% (i don't wanna exaggerate...)... anyone would do that simple step: buying a Linux licence (almost free) and buying an expensive CAD/CAM system... it certainly is less expensive than buying a workstation "all in one" (OS + CAD).
Re:Lower cost of ownership (Score:1)
>you pay $0 for Linux licenses.
Alot of the Alpha NT user base would go for this.
A better OS that takes more advantage of the Alpha
chip than NT does AND it can run their software faster. There's more than just Intel out there ya know
Re:Go Mainstream! Port AutoCAD & 3DStudio (Score:1)
Re:Lower cost of ownership - NO (Score:1)
However, on vanilla NT 4.0 w/- sp3 or 4, you shouldn't be getting BSOD weekly - let alone every other day. I'm the first to complain about NT's inumerable faults - but that's just silly! You're just not doing it right!
I install and maintain NT (when I have to) and Linux (when I can find an excuse) boxes and my uptime stats generally run to an hour or two downtime per month for NT, and about 10 or 20 minutes per year for linux. At my charge rate (which is the same for either type of work) that makes linux cheaper. (Installation takes about the same time.)
ADK
This is what i was wainting for...! (Score:1)
Re:Who will do Support? (as if there's any now) (Score:1)
"I gambled I would lose...I guess I win" Joe Henry