Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply
Message 1 of 56
Alian
6416 Views, 55 Replies

Autodesk for Linux

Any info about running AutoCAD or Inventor on Linux
55 REPLIES 55
Message 21 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

Qt came from my management and system administrator


I can understand from management, but a system administrator should have
already known all about this.

--
*does not care what David does not deserve*
Message 22 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

What brings you to that conclusion? Why should a system administrator know
everything about every application?

"Jaime" wrote in message news:4958740@discussion.autodesk.com...

I can understand from management, but a system administrator should have
already known all about this.

--
*does not care what David does not deserve*
Message 23 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

Hi Jeffrey,

Radiance went open source and it can be compiled against windows. I've
compiled parts it and know others who did it too. It's the same version that
has been available for Unix.

If you go to the download site someone has already compiled it for Windows,
but I see he's using the same process you are (Cygwin) and maybe that's
where you got it.

No worries about being offensive, etc. I can see now it's not as easy to get
the latest Radiance for Windows and you might not be able to or have the
tools to compile it the way I did.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify it.

-Alexander
Message 24 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

Alex Bicalho - Autodesk wrote:
> Radiance went open source and it can be compiled against windows. I've
> compiled parts it and know others who did it too. It's the same version that
> has been available for Unix.

Right, it's also what Rayfront and the 3DS plugin have done.

From what I've heard, however, is that there is a little bit of
complexity in the difference in file locking between the two systems.

> If you go to the download site someone has already compiled it for Windows,
> but I see he's using the same process you are (Cygwin) and maybe that's
> where you got it.

Radiance itself actually has an option within it's configuration script
to allow it to be complied for/within Cywgin directly, but I'm lazy, so
I just use his binaries. Again, because of pipes & file locking & such,
I'd recommend anyone wanting to use Radiance on Windows to use it under
Cygwin anyways. However, I'd not really recommend anyone use Radiance
unless they had very good reason to, it took me a very long time to even
get to the point where I can get predictable results out of it...

> No worries about being offensive, etc. I can see now it's not as easy to get
> the latest Radiance for Windows and you might not be able to or have the
> tools to compile it the way I did.

Good, I was hoping I didn't offend you by talking about it more.

Since I've now learned how to do X11 forwarding over SSH, I'm doing more
and more of my 'Linux' stuff off of the home server instead (I've got a
static IP). I'm at the point that I might just remove my Linux partition
from my laptop altogether and just run all the Linux stuff remotely, and
just run Windows on the laptop. Just use Radiance on Cygwin to configure
/preview the rendering job, then send it off to the server to chew on
from there...

My big concerns re: Autodesk for Linux and/or OS X has much more to do
with Clusters, Multi-Core, and Distributed processes. This is one area
that MS is really behind on, and I've not yet seen much in the news
about what's coming in Vista to really make me think it's going to be
much different than what we have now (other than having all that fancy
UI garbage). Autodesk tieing itself so tightly to Windows means that
it's also giving up on these new exciting trends until Microsoft gets
it's act together, if it ever does, to support those things, or to
support them properly. That's why I think it's a shame, for the only
Autodesk product I use anymore is Revit, and there's a lot of really
neat stuff I see on the Linux and OS X sides that could be applied
there, but probably never will be...

my 2 cents.

Jeffrey
Message 25 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

Alian wrote:

> Any info about running AutoCAD or Inventor on Linux

I have AutoCAD 2002 running under wine. It took some effort, and Linux
knowledge, and Stef of Yoder's pages on LT.

BricsCAD and ProgeCAD are fully AutoCAD 2005 compatible (and in fact offer
dwg based compatibility back to r2.x, unlike Autodesk who left the old
versions in the trash bin of history) and both offer Linux/Wine solutions
for under $500.00. Autodesk *should* see that this is the future and port,
unless they want to lose a substantial number of customers who just can't
afford the Microsoft/Autodesk upgrade rollercoaster.

Your friend and mine,

Bean
Message 26 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

O I know its impossible to know everything about every application. But as
a system administrator you should know about the software being run on your
network, and be aware of how software changes/updates are going to affect
the network, esp if it is something the company depends on daily. Although,
this may be hard to do in large companies, most (ones ive visited or
observed) seem to have something in place to at least stay up to date on
what is being used and ways to improve upon it.

--
*does not care what David does not deserve*
Message 27 of 56
LarryTheCableGuy
in reply to: Alian

Yes you can run Autocad in Linux, just use either "Wine" or "Cross Over Office" to run Window app's under Linux.

http://architectafrica.com/bin0/news200411111_wine.html
Message 28 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

git-r-dun Larry!

--
Steven Ondrias, Technician
President =====> Hunters of Texas
VP =====> Amigo and Jetta Society of America
Member =====> Ted Nugent Fan Club
C3DISAPOS dual 19's Matrox 650-128 XPpro sp2 dual P 3 Ghz 2GB ram
eagle point guru...
overall a nice guy......
t5's official sausage sender.....


wrote in message news:5584700@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes you can run Autocad in Linux, just use either "Wine" or "Cross Over
Office" to run Window app's under Linux.

http://architectafrica.com/bin0/news200411111_wine.html
Message 29 of 56
irneb
in reply to: Alian

There's another way of doing this - and it would work for any new AutoCAD / Revit (or for that matter other software). You don't need a dual booting PC (i.e. partitions with different OS installed). You could use what's called a Virtual Machine, a good one I use is VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org/) - open source & works on Windows / Mac / Linux hosts. I've heard that MS also sells one, but then you require licenses for each Virtual Machine, and you'll have to have Windows installed as the host OS.

You'll still need the 2 (or more) OS's (with licenses as required), so buy a Windows XP / Vista license (or what ever you think needed). But you don't need to reboot in order to use the other OS - a simple keyboard shortcut can be set-up to switch between the 2.

So you'll not have to uninstall anything, leave your Linux installation as is, install VirtualBox, create a Virtual Machine with decent HDD and RAM space, start the Virtual Machine, mount your CD/DVD drive with the Windows CD inserted, install Windows as usual, install AutoCAD through the Windows Virtual Machine. This way AutoCAD doesn't actually notice it's on a Linux box.

With some tweaking to VirtualBox, you could even implement a shared disk between your various virtual machines & the host OS & share the network connections. The only problem I've found is using copy-n-paste, OLE, etc.
Message 30 of 56
hirsp1
in reply to: Alian

You've missed the point entirely.

I use AutoCAD because I'm invested in AutoCAD. However, I have NO love for Windows. Vista is a mess. Windows is insecure, buggy and generally expensive to run. The OS is a liability. It takes resources (not just system resources) to run the OS than should be reasonably expected.

I would switch to Linux in a heartbeat if Autodesk would port AutoCAD (and the related products, like Architecture and Revit Architecture).

This isn't about AutoCAD, it's about Windows. Windows is a noose around Autodesk's neck.

I don't need Windows, but I do need AutoCAD. They're only related because Autodesk has made a very poor business decision to get in bed with Microsoft.
Message 31 of 56
dgorsman
in reply to: Alian

Justify the "very poor business decision" part, please?
----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 32 of 56
hirsp1
in reply to: Alian

It's really rather simple. Over time, Windows will go away. It cannot sustain itself. Vista is a disaster for MS. People aren't buying it. Nobody needs it, or wants it. More DRM, more bloat, more things I don't want or need. More being required to upgrade hardware just to support OS bloat. More cost to upgrade to an OS that isn't in any way better. MS and Windows are not in my future--except that AutoCAD is windows only.

This particular problem isn't Autodesk, it's the OS. And there is NO reason why AutoCAD can't work equally well, if not better, in a Linux environment. If Autodesk insists that I upgrade to Vista to use a future iteration of Architecture, I will abandon my investment and go elsewhere. I've spoken to many others who feel the same way. The insistance of only supporting this one inferior operating system is a bad business decision (and if you don't think so, look at Microsoft creating a OS X version of Office. This is for an OS that has a pathetic market share, too - even MS understands that it must support more than just Windows for its profitable software).

The tide is turning against MS, and I think it would be wise of Autodesk to get off the ship before it runs aground.
Message 33 of 56
irneb
in reply to: Alian

It's now even got worse about that Vista problem: Originally you couldn't buy any new hardware without Vista pre-installed (unless you buy it with some linux installed). Now after some people have started to complain about all of Vista's cockroaches (not bugs - these are large cumbersome offensive things), they've now started SELLING a DOWNGRADE to XP ... can you believe this?

It's like AutoDesk saying ... sorry we don't sell 2007 anymore ... you may only buy 2008 ... we know it's got bugs ... but after you've purchased the new product you can get the downgrade to 2007 for an additional fee. Don't get me wrong ... AutoDesk isn't this stupid (I hope) ... however they are "in bed" with someone else who is this STUPID (or is it rather VERY SMART & UNETHICAL).
Message 34 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:18:14 +0000, hirsp1 <> wrote:

>They're only related because Autodesk has made a very poor business decision to get in bed with Microsoft.

Autodesk made a GREAT business decision to wed themselves to the Microsoft
Windows platform.

By doing so, they were able to focus development efforts in one direction. At
the time, there was only one OS line to really worry about - Windows 95, then
Windows 2000, then Windows XP. Each successive OS was close enough to the
previous one with backward compatibility and used much of the same underpinnings
using the Win32 API which would support their products.

Without OS stability they would have to spend a ton of additional resources to
code, compile and test for each additional OS. At the time of the decision to
drop Unix and Mac (around R12 if I recall) those OSes simply had no market
share. Development costs would have never seen a ROI.

Many of the dialog boxes which AutoCAD uses could now be ported off of the
ancient crusty DCL platform and use Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) to build
much more robust functionality.

They could leverage code from Microsoft to do some work for them - using IE to
drive the Help system then later using .NET to build the CUI system and other
bits and pieces.

Over time it has turned into an AWFUL decision for their customers, because now
we all know that Vista sucks. Such development inertia leaves out Mac OSX and
Linux, which have matured to the point where cross-platform development is
starting to make more sense and more customers want the choice to run on
alternate platforms.

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 35 of 56
dgorsman
in reply to: Alian

Exactly. Now that there will be some suitable competition for *useable* operating systems, software developers can start thinking about writing for them. That will still take a few years, though. And given the "lean and mean", specific focus business models the developer companies have evolved into, cross-platform programming will still be too expensive unless a universal operating system standard is adopted.
----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 36 of 56
irneb
in reply to: Alian

Well, you say OS stability in MS Win ????? The core of Windows has changed at least 3 times in the last 10 years:
- 16bit on top of DOS for Win3.1 to Win98.
- 32bit extension to the above Win98 & WinME.
- 32bit native windowOS NT3 to XP
- 64bit native WinXP64
-32bit but new core (more in line with Linux) Vista
- 64bit as above Vista64

Every single one of the above uses different libraries through which the programmers have to accomplish their tasks. So not just a recompiling exercise (as with Linux) but many coding need to be changed as well.

Whereas Linux is still using the same thing of 15 years old (based on the older Unix cores) - they've just added to it & made it work faster & on the newer hardware. And they've introduced the XWindows system which accomplishes all those same tasks which MS Programmes rave about so much - just that the XWindows libraries are backward & forward compatible (so your new programs could even run on an older operating system) unless you've used new features (not so with Windows try run AutoCAD2008 on Win95 it should be possible, yet isn't, because AC doesn't realy use anything new from what was available then but the libraries have changed so much that the same function is programmed in a totally different way). The programs you could run in the early 90's still work without change of source code on the latest Fedora 7 release - Fedora did not even exist then, nor did it's original base Linux system (Red-Hat).

The only thing good about AutoDesk's choice was that they got a lot of market share riding on the MS back. As everyone knows: "All good things come to an end eventually." And MS is starting to loose ground (especially in the Operating System market) - simply because there's now too much competition, and they can't get their products out soon enough: i.e. send an incomplete buggy program out so people start buying it instead of the slightly better competitor's product (compared to our previous release). This starts eating at MS customer's patience - not to mention bank balance. The MS market share has been falling for the last 5 years, while the Linux share has been increasing - sooner or later a critical mass will happen and (as was MS's market oblivion in the DOS days) nearly everything will go the Linux route, unless something better comes along VERY SOON.
Message 37 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:01:12 +0000, irneb <> wrote:

>Well, you say OS stability in MS Win ?????

When I mean "OS stability" I mean the stability of an OS as a development
platform over the long haul, not how much uptime a particular OS is reputed to
provide. Having 4 or 5 different OSes to write for is not a stable solution for
any software developer.

> The core of Windows has changed at least 3 times in the last 10 years:
>- 16bit on top of DOS for Win3.1 to Win98.
>- 32bit extension to the above Win98 & WinME.
>- 32bit native windowOS NT3 to XP
>- 64bit native WinXP64
>-32bit but new core (more in line with Linux) Vista
>- 64bit as above Vista64

Windows 95 is 12 years old, but fully-32-bit Windows NT is even older.

Regardless, the MAJORITY of Windows and AutoCAD users have been wed to the Win32
API using Windows NT, Windows 2000 and then Windows XP. AutoCAD has required a
full 32-bit OS for quite some time.

>Every single one of the above uses different libraries through which the programmers have to accomplish their tasks.

And adding additional OS support would increase this tenfold.

>So not just a recompiling exercise (as with Linux) but many coding need to be changed as well.

There's no such thing as a "recompiling exercise." Every iteration of AutoCAD
has required extensive testing.

>Whereas Linux is still using the same thing of 15 years old (based on the older Unix cores) - they've just added to it & made it work faster & on the newer hardware. And they've introduced the XWindows system which accomplishes all those same tasks which MS Programmes rave about so much - just that the XWindows libraries are backward & forward compatible (so your new programs could even run on an older operating system) unless you've used new features (not so with Windows try run AutoCAD2008 on Win95 it should be possible, yet isn't, because AC doesn't realy use anything new from what was available then but the libraries have changed so much that the same function is programmed in a totally different way).

Wrong: AutoCAD 2008 has a MINIMUM system requirement of Windows 2000 SP4 or
newer.

>The programs you could run in the early 90's still work without change of source code on the latest Fedora 7 release - Fedora did not even exist then, nor did it's original base Linux system (Red-Hat). The only thing good about AutoDesk's choice was that they got a lot of market share riding on the MS back. As everyone knows: "All good things come to an end eventually." And MS is starting to loose ground (especially in the Operating System market) - simply because there's now too much competition, and they can't get their products out soon enough: i.e. send an incomplete buggy program out so people start buying it instead of the slightly better competitor's product (compared to our previous release). This starts eating at MS customer's patience - not to mention bank balance. The MS market share has been falling for the last 5 years, while the Linux share has been increasing - sooner or later a critical mass will happen and (as was MS's market oblivion in the DOS days) nearly
everything will go the Linux route, unless something better comes along VERY SOON.

Whatever. The technical status of today's OSes is largely irrelevent. And anyone
who thinks AutoCAD would somehow be magically better if Autodesk ported it over
to Linux or Mac OSX needs to have their head examined. It would only give the
user more choice, and given the benefits (possibly better stability, a more fun
OS experience, cooler hardware) the user MAY benefit in the overall scheme of
things. But any AutoCAD performance gains becuase of OS choice is not a given,
and would have to be extensively tested and tweaked.

But also remember that choice travels up the line. The whole IT department of
your company would have to get on board. That ship does not turn on a dime; a
company would have to purchase ALL new software, and evaluate if those other
programs they use would benefit as well.

And please, back up any claim as to Microsoft's dwindling OS market share with
some facts. I don't buy the assertion that Windows is in ANY way threatened by
alternative platforms, and Autodesk isn't losing any sleep over them either.

Regardless, anyone who goes from 1% of the market to 2% and boasting that their
market share has grown 100% isn't being entirely straight. Linux may be making
gains on the desktop, fine. But it's nowhere near a critical mass stage. in fact
Apple overtook the Linux market share almost overnight.

Autodesk's market share is in no way tied to the MS Windows platform (more
Windows users did not ever equate to more AutoCAD users). Autodesk's market
share grew because of interoperability requirements between companies to
effectively share information. This is why DWG is such an important
lowest-common-denominator. And Autodesk has always been committed to providing
PC based CAD sofwtare, which again equals Windows.

Autodesk simply decided to develop for the single most popular 23-bit platform
out there, which was Windows. And they would have been stupid to pick anything
OTHER than Windows.

The Mac with it's less-than-phenominal 0.0009% market share was proprietarily
tied to overpriced, slow Motoroa hardware which was entirely incompatible with
the Intel processor and x86 instruction set. If you think Bill Gates controls
too much of your desktop, get a load of Steve Jobs.

Linux did not even exist.

Unix was for the most part pretty expensive and had 50 different flavors to
boot, plus the only ones who knew how it worked all looked like the bass player
from ZZ Top.

In short, the decision to devote 100% of their development time to Windows was a
no-brainer.

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 38 of 56
irneb
in reply to: Alian

Yes I can see your points, some of them are very true, e.g.: in the early / mid 90's Windows was getting to be the OS of choice, using from the DOS mainstay. Thus all other OS's had an uphill battle - falling out of the race.

The question now is: what will happen next? I'm not in agreement with all the Linux hype. Linux came from the Unix cores which got born in the 70's (or even earlier). Thus it's actually old technology, just improved somewhat. There's since been many programming advances which could make an OS much better - these are hardly used in any OS today. For example, I can only think of one OS which really uses Object Oriented Code: JavaOS (there may be others, but Linux, Mac or MS are not among them).

The above said, it does apear to look as if Mac thinks Linux is the future (their change-over to the Debaian Linux Core for their SystemX) and even MS thinks so: just compare Vista to KDE desktop ... it looks like mirrors of each other, only KDE looked that way in '98.
Message 39 of 56
irneb
in reply to: Alian

Comparison of market share: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5

Windows XP seems the top, Vista's eating into it, but not as much as it's loosing. True the others have less than 10% share in total. DOS had less than 1% share in 1983 - mac had nearly 100% then.

The point about the above is: While Vista grows much faster than any other OS, this comes at the expense of XP. Thus all that MS is doing is moving their existing customers from XP to Vista.

Here's another thing showing that even Microsoft thinks Linux is the future: http://www.news.com/Novell-credits-Microsoft-for-soaring-Linux-sales/2100-7344_3-6210692.html?tag=topicIndex
Message 40 of 56
Anonymous
in reply to: Alian

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:24:45 +0000, irneb <> wrote:
>For example, I can only think of one OS which really uses Object Oriented Code: JavaOS (there may be others, but Linux, Mac or MS are not among them).

Well, that statement right there shows how much - or little - you actually know
about the state of the Windows XP/Vista OS and its programming APIs, and
operating systems in general.

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report