Thanks. Freedom of choice must only mean your choice. Because I choose Microsoft.
None of these arguments are relevant. The simple fact remains. Until there is a valid cost-benefit-analysis for Autodesk to profit in the Linux market, it will not happen. Just because it exists does not mean they should develop for it. They should develop for it if it the market proves it is profitable. That is the responsibility that Autodesk has for its shareholders. The free market will work the way it has always worked.
Regardless, Autodesk is not going to let their intellectual property go open-source and allow competitors to steal their product.
Of course, a cost-benefit analysis needs to figure demand into the mix, and the continuing posts over the past decade asking for linux demonstrates at least some level of interest/demand. Given that Aplle seems to be actively abandoning the enterprise market, which is one of Adesk's major ragets, the notion may not be so far-fetched as it was in 2002.
Those who've been around the lake a time or two can remember when Acad was a multi-os application, running on anything from DOS & Xenix, to SunOS, MacOS, and IIRC even god save us VMS. I ran R9 quite nicely on both Dec Ultrix workstations and Sparcstations runnins SunOS. And there are certainly conspiracy theories about the 'windows only' decision, and microsoft's astounding lack of interest in climbing into the trillion dollar aec/cad/design siftware market.
For what it's worth, Adesk has made significant strides towards returning to a multi-os application. The existence of the CoreConsole suggests that deploying a Linux version in the future will be less of an effor than many think. Much of the work under the hood is being done, or has already been done. Doubtless there's a 'proof of concept' project running now.
I agree with colnelb re: hackers. Hackers are closer to pure scientists than commercial scientists. We as humans have acquired greater benefit from pure scientists than from commercial scientists. If we are to advance science at the rate required to overcome the negative impact we are having on the planet, we will need to get the tools to advance science into as many hands as possible. Linux is one way of lowering the overall cost to achieve this goal.
On another note, Windows' constant changes to stem the loss of market share to Apple and Google, diverts time and energy away from productive work. I have always maintained that the ideal operating system is invisible to the user. If I have to spend time to learn how to navigate a new operting system every five years, that flies in the face of invisibility. The latest 'Tiled' interface from Microsoft has finally brought an end to my relationship with Microsoft. I am currently investigating ways of running my engineering software through Linux. If I have to run it from a virtual machine in the near future, so be it. However, I will be looking for alternatives that provide me direct access through Linux for the tools I need to do my work. I am currently using Autocad for 2D design and to produce drawings, and Solidworks for 3D design. If Autodesk were to port their software to Linux, they would get my 3D design also.
The thing that is important right now Travis, is that many users are seeing the surrounding OS options. No matter how much you answer back saying it is not cost effective, that can change, and (i didn't think so) pretty fast. Perhaps in a near future that cost-effectiveness points the opposite direction, i'd dare to say, given the .net platform-independent development tools starting to get available, this could be even closer than it seems.
In other words, cost of change is reducing. When costs of implementation get lower, or demand higher, things cost-effectiveness-impossible turn possible. It is like extracting oil from canada's sand; it is a reality now, it used to be impossible. (by the way that extraction is causing eviromental mass-destruction, see TED Talk about it, The cost of Oil)
... it is not cost effective, that can change,
And it will change if it becomes cost effective. AutoCAD now runs on Mac OS again.
I don't get the point. Not a good business decision now? Might be a good business decision in the future
Somehow I think Autodesk will make the business decisions they think are right for the company?
Competitors can engage in free-market development.
ok , If I may say something; the fact that autodesk has an AutoCAD LT edition for android means that It is really simple to go to Linux. It is not a major change in the code or alike. It is just an investment in new branch of OS. That's all.
I bet that Autocad or any other Autodesk programs under Linux will make us all free to choose our OS. It's about making us free to choose. Linux is more stable and secure. Linux worth a try!.
I don't like the fact that we use windows because and only because: "It runs autocad". That stinks! Why we all don't have the choice.
Another thing is that making this decision will encourage game makers to go to Linux. Will, that's only a Linux benefit I guess!
We want just to combine Linux magnificent progress with Autocad great software to reach better results. That's all.
Seems to me you work in a very small or very new company if the choice of the OS is only controlled by AutoCAD.
In any larger company there are a multitude of different programs and their interactions and legacy data that control this.
For example, I took a look at our software support database, it listed over 200 separate programs, at least half of those being actively used daily, including some parts written 30 years ago... (actually those might be the easiest parts to migrate to another OS, they've been through that at least twice already.) Changing that to some other environment would be an enormous undertaking that is unlikely to receive corporate approval in the foreseeable future; even migrating to Windows 7 is a process that has taken years to prepare for (mixed among other work, of course).