Ter, 2007-04-10 às 08:28 -0600, Warren Turkal escreveu: > On Tuesday 10 April 2007 07:43, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > > I may have exaggerated by saying 20 years, but I will not settle for > > > less than 10. And we need those anyway to compare results obtained by > > > one software against the other. > > > > This is interesting. I often hear people citing pros and cons of FLOSS > > and commercial stuff, but don't remember anyone stating such > > extravagant development gaps as 10 years or so. I'd like to hear > > opinions of others who have also used those Cplex Maple, and whatever > > else you may have in mind. This however brings to mind libre CAD stuff > > which truly lags behind. > > People wouldn't use those programs more than the free equivalents if there > weren't some reason. Sometimes that reason is that the proprietary solution > has a larger library of extras (libs, etc.) around it that makes it easier to > quickly do something without reinventing the wheel. Sometimes the reason is > as simple as someone doesn't want to have to learn a new software package or > port all there stuff to a new software. These are hard barriers to overcome.
Maybe software vendors will look at linux for more power for less hardware, using 64 bit solution. Talking about CAD and CAM, for example, they need too much of power, even if machines are currently enought. Having linux to complete use 64 bit solutions may open a door for software vendors to built their applications on linux. Free cad implementations are too simple for use in some industrial environments, when programs like CATIA or Solidorks, or inventor, Come in Mind. These programs are expensive and require power that can be better used in 64 bit platform. CATIA has unix versions ... i don't really know if they will ever have linux versions. best regards Luis Matos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
