←back to thread

316 points pabs3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
elashri ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
rleigh ◴[] No.42170658[source]
It's because these tools are used to deliver high quality physical products on time and on budget with no scope or interest in messing around with software defects. These tools are treated like physical tools. It's worth paying for a high quality one which won't cause unexpected grief, by people who will provide immediate support because we pay them.

I think if there were good quality open source equivalents they would be considered, but they pose a huge risk, possibly even an existential risk, if they derail our development plans unexpectedly. Paying a lot of money for seriously good quality tools reduces that risk dramatically.

I've had a brief look at FreeCAD, and it's got a lot of potential. But when you compare it with SolidWorks, OnShape or SolidEdge, there's clearly a huge gap in usability and capability which needs closing before a lot of people will be able to consider it seriously. I'm sure it will eventually get there, like KiCAD did, but it will take many years and a lot of investment to get the usability, polish and featureset up to parity. It looks like Ondsel did a really good job to make some progress along that path.

replies(3): >>42171016 #>>42171086 #>>42171348 #
xyzzy123 ◴[] No.42171016[source]
I agree although I feel like one could easily make the exact same comments regarding compilers. I can't quite pin down why there would be many free (for various values of free) industry standard compilers but not cad programs.
replies(3): >>42171893 #>>42173376 #>>42173731 #
1. whyever ◴[] No.42171893[source]
Open Source works best for building blocks of software, not for end products. Companies have incentives to share their libraries and tooling, not so much for the final product like a CAD program.