Since no established business tools are ported to Linux, you are already reinventing the wheel by seeking Linux software.
Good luck with this wishlist item, it may or may not happen with Autodesk but your 'need' is not very well thought out. if you "need" Linux, you don't "need" Windows/MAC software developers to follow you, you "need" to follow Linux developers hard at work trying to earn your business. You just don't want to deal with Windows OS, nothing more
dgorsman wrote:... Not to mention, by accepting user contributions its possible to "contribute" carefully constructed back doors for later exploitation.
This has been my argument since the very beginning. An "open-source" OS built and supported by hackers will never see the light of day in my enterprise. In my experience, all those squeaky wheels asking for more Linux support have always been the anti-establishment types... or the anti-Microsoft bashing genre. It's a black hat mentality that doesn't translate well in the real world as it did in your high school bedroom.
Gentlemen, Please, please, please do not spread FUD!
TravisNave - if you are adamant about no FOSS software in your enterprise, or by extension performing mission-critical operations for your enterprise - then you will need to unplug all your routers, backup devices, NAS boxes, phones, and eliminate all inter-organization email and unplug from the Web. What do you think runs all that infrastructure you depend on daily? Windows for Workgroups?????
Installling a 'secret' back door in an OS is for all practical purposes, impossible. Before Jobs final departure from Apple, he _could_ have put one into OSX, and his staffers would have done it, but it would not have remained undiscovered for any substantial length of time. Microsoft??? Balmer by himself would not have the internal clout or personal charisma to make it so, MS would have run it through a committee, and if if those hundreds of people successfully implemented it and kep it secret, the security community, both black and white hat, would quickly ferret it out. And, with the MS Shared Source program, customers in that program would have been able to identify a deliberate back door by reading the source. You can't keep a secret when the source is public. Although, you can if all your user's see are .exe and .dll files..... But too many people are poking at it everyday, from NSA to Kapersky.
Installing a backdoor in a FOSS os, such as Linux or any of the BSDs, is literally impossible. There are far too many eyes looking at the code for anything on that order to occur. Or do you think 30,000 people across the planet in dozens of nations can keep a conspiracy of that magnitude secret????
It does not seem a though you have any idea of how FOSS works, especially in the cases of a major OS like GNU/Linux. Sure - anyone, hacker, high-schooler, or PhD, can submit a patch, but that patch does not get committed and included in the OS source code blindly. It's tested and reviewed - by experts with the OS. Unlike private enterprise, where the bosses son-in-law can be a corporate VP the day he gets out of junior college, major FOSS projects are a meritocracy. A contributor has to prove his chops by developing clean, competent, reliable code to the best of his ability. If he has the ability, he can eventually become a maintainer - whether his daddy was the governor of michigan or a migrant farm worker in texas. Merit matters, nothing else. Bugs happen, sure, and some haoppen that impact security, but intentional???? not possible. Deliberately implementing an OS flaw of that nature would be discovered, and the submitter would be kicked out with high dudgeon, and spend the remainder of his existence being doxed by 4chan..
All that aside, as has been mentioned before, Adesk has already taken substantial steps towards an OS-neutral CAD platform with the separation of Core and interface. Personally, I hope they do not try a linux version -- the Windows version is bad enough, and the OSX even worse. Trying a *Nix iteration could only dilute the effort put into fixing and maintaining what they've already got. Leave that OS to Graebert and Bricsys -- people hungry enough to do it right. After all, (no offense Dieter) Adesk can't even put out a functional help system for their current CAD application.
By migrating away from the Microsoft windows environment your company can realize large cost reductions. One of the basic tenets of the Linux kernel development is software operability over the life of the operating system. There are users who are still running applications written in 1992 on current Ubuntu 12.04 releases of the operating system. This translates into cost savings for user companies and software developers, both large and small. It is time that western companies wake up to the options that are available and the long term benefits of those options. Yes, there may be a one-time hit in the migration, but large savings can be realized over the long term. Arthur
Regrettably the situation isn't quite as simple as that. I'll believe that from software written in 1992, which would probably be written for "real" Unix, which was a lot simpler than present-day Linux. Finding desktop software written in 2002 still working would be far less likely; in my years with Linux (since kernel version 0.99.13) I've seen plenty of software break due to library incompatibilities when updating to a newer version of the OS.
One of the problems with Linux for commercial acceptability is actually its fast development, it changes faster than corporate software maintenance can keep up.
- Ubuntu's LTS and similar long-term support versions help a little, but even a 5-year support period is a little short.
Mentor made the comment, "Ubuntu's LTS and similar long-term support versions help a little, but even a 5-year support period is a little short."
I would like to remind everyone that Microsoft (MS) has evidently been having problems producing a long term reliable OS for desktops, with the exception of Windows XP, which MS is tring to discontinue support for. Windows Vista was released worldwide on January 30, 2007 while Windows 7 was released worldwide on October 20, 2009. That is a a two and half OS release cycle. And, MS is working on releasing Windows 8 in the near future.
Many of the libray issues in Linux can be traced back to hardware technology migrations as well. I have run newer versions of Linux with older hardware and application librarys withhout too much difficulty. Any IT organization "worth its salt" will be doing change management and version upgrade compatibility, regardless of the OS. In 2008 I worked as a PM on a corporate upgrade to Vista. In one location, the IT organization found that several of the mission critical apps would not work on any version other than Windows NT 4. Several of the systems with dedicated apps would not work on anything other than Windows XP S3. All in all, only about 45% of the mission critical systems could be upgraded to Vista. I would think that the company has likely upgraded that 45% to Windows 7 by now. I have even seen situations where that was a problem upgrading between Window XP SP2 and SP3.
OS upgrades without problems in a large corporation is a myth, regardless of Windows or Linux.
For 64-Bit Autodesk Maya 2013
- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (SP1), Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (SP2), Apple® Mac OS® X 10.7.x, Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® 6.0 WS, or Fedora™ 14 operating system
- Windows and Linux: Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon processor with SSE3 instruction set support (or higher)
- Macintosh® computer: Macintosh computer with Intel-based 64-bit processor
- 4 GB RAM
- 10 GB free hard drive space
- Certified hardware-accelerated OpenGL graphics card
- 3-button mouse with mouse driver software
- DVD-ROM drive
- Internet Explorer 8 or higher, Safari, or Firefox web browser
Maya 2013 is also capable of running on other configurations such as boutique distributions of Linux. However, enumerating systems that are not tested and cannot be supported or that fall below the requirements for a productive user experience is beyond the scope of the online certification charts.
Only the interfaces, not the core. A basic tenet of the core is that it is compatible with software over the long term.
That is rather irrelevant, very few people run application programs on top of a bare kernel.