On Saturday 05 June 2010 02:14 PM, jtd wrote:
It took some effort to change our work pattern and discover the "lack of features" were actually a blessing in disguise that actually uncovers subtle design issues. The power of scripts within the application slashes development time enormously. The textfile storage format actually allows you very precise and complex shapes and cutouts, a very painful task in closed apps. And the icing is freedom from the forced upgrade treadmill. Of course everyone would have loved to port their old designs, but from a developer viewpoint, a translator is a waste of time given the sheer number of ill documnetd ecad formats.
It also makes me wonder about the motives of companies using such formats, and the daftness of customers working hard to pay an extortion racket.
Customers simply want the easiest way to install and use their software and that it is popular with the professional staff they will employ. Cost of the software is recovered from the business profits. Nowadays closed sourse companies too are sensitive to users' needs for lower cost of the software and are providing the same at good rates. For eg. AutoCAD LT. is available for some 15K per user in a 5 user license. For an architect who makes decent profits in multiple projects, this cost is marginal. MS Office 2007 home and students edition is available for less than 3K for a 3 user ( for 3 pcs ) pack. AutoCad guys also provide technical support locally and from my own experience with different licensed versions that are being used, they do not give any trouble at all. So where is the need to change to a software that has no training and support available and whose UI is not as useful as that of AutoCad and there are no professional staff available to run the software daily? Plus, where in India does the parent FOSS software making company have its branches or offices for Indian customers to consult them professionally?