←back to thread

We are shutting down Ondsel

(ondsel.com)
316 points pabs3 | 3 comments | 18 Nov 24 05:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
elashri ◴[18 Nov 24 07:05 UTC] No.42170406[source]▶
Sometimes I envy that although I am not a SWE. I work in a field that is so close with the open source and tech scene that we don't have to rely on commercial products like some other fields. It is hard to compete or gain enough interest in some fields of engineering to any open or free solutions.
replies(3): >>42170536 #>>42170659 #>>42171188 #
shiroiushi ◴[18 Nov 24 07:41 UTC] No.42170536[source]▶
Unfortunately, I've noticed that non-SW engineers frequently turn their noses up at open-source solutions, and really the entire concept of open-source software, and seem to prefer proprietary solutions, the more expensive the better. I've seen this in the software world too, with embedded systems engineers, though Linux, gcc, etc. has made huge inroads here, though it took decades, and mainly came from the Linux adherents pushing downwards into the embedded space from the desktop space, not from any interest by the existing engineers in the embedded space.

Just look, for instance, at FPGAs: almost all the tooling is proprietary, very expensive, and very buggy too. Or look at PCB design: Altium seems to be the standard here still, despite Kicad having made huge advances and by most accounts being as good or even better. It took decades (Kicad started in 1992) for the FOSS alternatives here to really catch on much, and only really because PCBs became cheap enough for hobbyists to design and construct their own (mainly because of Chinese PCB companies), and because CERN contributed some resources.

I'm not sure what the deal is with engineers hating collaboratively-developed and freely-available software, but it's a real thing in my experience. It's like someone told them that FOSS is "socialism" and they just reflexively dismiss or hate it.

replies(17): >>42170583 #>>42170588 #>>42170592 #>>42170613 #>>42170625 #>>42170632 #>>42170646 #>>42170650 #>>42170658 #>>42170680 #>>42170736 #>>42170804 #>>42171260 #>>42171378 #>>42171833 #>>42172852 #>>42173816 #
leoedin ◴[18 Nov 24 08:02 UTC] No.42170625[source]▶
I don't think it's simply "engineers hate open source". Most of the open source tools in the embedded space are just a bit crap. The reality is that good software needs many thousands of hours of development time. The embedded space is actually pretty small in development budget terms - so fewer engineers who might devote time - and also there's less overlap in skillset - electronic design engineers rarely have the software skills required to develop EDA software.

Most of the incredibly well used robust open source packages are sponsored by large tech companies. The embedded space just hasn't had that kind of sponsorship.

replies(3): >>42170666 #>>42170676 #>>42170692 #
shiroiushi ◴[18 Nov 24 08:19 UTC] No.42170692[source]▶
> electronic design engineers rarely have the software skills required to develop EDA software.

You could say that about many other fields too, but then why do we have great tools like Blender, Krita, Audacity, etc.? Artists and musicians have great software skills, but electronics engineers don't? There's always been a huge overlap between EE and CS degrees, with "computer engineering" degrees coming about as a merger of the two fields decades ago, so I find this statement hard to believe.

replies(3): >>42170713 #>>42170745 #>>42171130 #
1. TylerE ◴[18 Nov 24 08:23 UTC] No.42170713[source]▶
Well, Blender, at least started as commercial software. It was only open sourced after the foundation was put together to hit the source code out of the bankruptcy.
replies(2): >>42170764 #>>42170766 #
2. regularfry ◴[18 Nov 24 08:39 UTC] No.42170764[source]▶
That's a long way in the past though, and one of the fascinating things about the Blender project is the way that they have been able to break with their legacy in a way that other projects seem incapable of. Modern Blender is a very different experience to the early iterations.
3. kilpikaarna ◴[18 Nov 24 08:40 UTC] No.42170766[source]▶
Yes, but Blender at that point was very primitive, both from a features and usability standpoint. What really drove Blender forward in its earlier years were the open movie projects, both as a way of raising funds for development and as a way of putting the software through its paces to find spots that need improvement. Ton Roosendal has been a superbly skillful project leader in other ways too, like finding the right technical areas and features to focus on, putting the needs of the artists/users first, knowing when to set aside his own vision in favor of what the community wants and not undertaking major rewrites until there is enough momentum behind the project to see them through.