TheSwamp
Code Red => .NET => Topic started by: TheMaster on July 07, 2012, 11:59:52 AM
-
Two recent comments I posted on the adndevblog have been deleted.
They were comments to this topic:
http://adndevblog.typepad.com/autocad/2012/07/performance-perception-versus-reality.html
My first comment included a rant about how AutoCAD was never brought out of the dark ages of computing (aside from the cosmetic aspects), specifically with regards to parallel execution and leveraging multiple CPU cores, and rather than doing the work to make that happen, Autodesk is instead offering us CPU time on a server in a datacenter (e.g., cloud/Autodesk 360). Going only from memory, my comment ended with "Sure - It's got a modern, glitzy user interface, but still can't walk and chew gum at the same time".
In my second comment, I expressed my disagreement with this statement from that post:
Any optimization work over and above removing the ‘perception’ of a delay is essentially wasted effort.
I disagreed with that statement and gave my reasons, namely that when writing reusable/shared library code, one cannot predict how or where that code will eventually be used, and for that reason, it pays to optimize that kind of code even when there may be no immediate, demonstrable, real-world case where the optimization can result in a perceptible difference.
Well, if I do post a comment there again, I'll be sure to put a copy of it here.
-
What if this post here is disappeared tomorrow? ;-)
-
What if this post here is disappeared tomorrow? ;)
Then tommorrow this thread would only contain original post and maybe still this one and would have to remove the quote from this one to totally remove it.
-
Tony, I read your comments and saw nothing that warranted removal. It struck a chord with me because I've been bemused by the Autodesk push for the cloud in favour of other options.
I recall when reading the microsecond latency cost comment that I wondered if AutoDesk had calculated how much each product crash cost users; and how much they had saved at the cost to developers (and users) by not providing timely documentation.
Huez,
TheSwamp posting policy is fairly clear ; so I assume you were being amusing :)
-
While I agree with the sentement that Autodesk should make its software able to use multiple CPUs, I support their decision to delete such posts that call into question their motives and/or that disparage their product.
There are a great number of outlets where one can post items that point out obvious flaws and/or shortcomings in products. TheSwamp is a perfect location for example, but it is not reasonable to expect that any company will support posts on their forums or those of their partners that disparage their product.
If I produce a product, I'd certainly not allow random people to post disparaging remarks on a forum that I operate. I seriously doubt anyone would.
-
While I agree with the sentement that Autodesk should make its software able to use multiple CPUs, I support their decision to delete such posts that call into question their motives and/or that disparage their product.
There are a great number of outlets where one can post items that point out obvious flaws and/or shortcomings in products. TheSwamp is a perfect location for example, but it is not reasonable to expect that any company will support posts on their forums or those of their partners that disparage their product.
If I produce a product, I'd certainly not allow random people to post disparaging remarks on a forum that I operate. I seriously doubt anyone would.
Feel free to mislabel criticism as 'disparage', but that dog won't hunt here.
Some of us have a flair for the dramatic, and others lack the intestinal fortitude and courage to take their lumps in public, as they should. That was only how I ended my comment. You didn't see the other 95% of it. But it sure is interesting that you could form an opinion based on how little you know about the rest of what I had to say in that comment, eh?
If more customers were hammering away at them over the years in public rather than using the means they provide (which is by-design intended to keep customer feedback out of the public eye), then I very much doubt that today we would still have an AutoCAD that can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm confident that the reason Autodesk has left AutoCAD to languish in the single-threaded, single-cpu world, is mainly because their long-term strategy is to migrate customers away from AutoCAD, to other products, and/or to the 'cloud' and more significantly, SAAS.
Having unpopular intentions, and acting to conceal them through censorship are two different things. I can't find sympathy for those who believe the latter is any better than any criticism they censor, even when there's a little salt and pepper sprinkled on it.
-
Feel free to mislabel criticism as 'disparage', but that dog won't hunt here.
According to thesaurus.com, the definition of disparage is "criticize, detract from" .. but I'll accept criticize as an alternate word if you like, because they are essentially the same thing.
Some of us have a flair for the dramatic, and others lack the intestinal fortitude and courage to take their lumps in public, as they should. That was only how I ended my comment. You didn't see the other 95% of it. But it sure is interesting that you could form an opinion based on how little you know about the rest of what I had to say in that comment, eh?
What you said or didn't say is irrelevant. My comments were based on what you provided here ... i.e. your post was deleted on the ADN site and you think that it was censorship. Although, based on what you posted here (i.e. what you said you posted there), at least the first post seemed a bit over the top.
Perhaps my method of dealing with criticizm is different. I find I get what I want more often when I present a well thought out case. For example, rather than calling a product something that "was never brought out of the dark ages", I might offer reasons why the product should rightly be updated to include the capabilities of modern multi-core processors (i.e. much larger file size, the availability of multi-core systems, more complex design requirements etc.) By taking a hammer to the problem, you merely ended up with broken glass. It very well may have been broken in the long run, but I suspect your comments would have been preserved.
I stand by my comments and I suspect that if someone came to your website and posted something about you or your product, you probably wouldn't think very long before removing the critical content.
That doesn't make them a good company or their actions good. I merely stated that their actions were justifiable because they own the forum. As owners, they have the right to delete whatever they decide to delete (or not delete as far as that is concerned).
If more customers were hammering away at them over the years in public rather than using the means they provide (which is by-design intended to keep customer feedback out of the public eye), then I very much doubt that today we would still have an AutoCAD that can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
You are absolutely correct!
I also suspect that just about every company keeps its negative customer feedback private. To make it public would be counter-productive to their marketing needs. Heck, there are plenty of places where negative comments about a product can be made. To expect that a company would publish someone's critical comments alongside the ones touting all the virtues of their product is silly.
I'm confident that the reason Autodesk has left AutoCAD to languish in the single-threaded, single-cpu world, is mainly because their long-term strategy is to migrate customers away from AutoCAD, to other products, and/or to the 'cloud' and more significantly, SAAS.
That may very well be the case. I can't fault them for that either. Would you rather they simply stopped producing AutoCAD, then force their clients to move to other solutions? That wouldn't be very smart now would it. However, if they "encourage" their clients to migrate because "Hey this *other* product does exactly what you are asking for in *this* product", then so be it. Many will migrate and their business strategies will be met.
Contrary to what you seem to be saying (you will correct me if I am wrong), Autodesk doesn't need to be concerned with whether their product meets your long-term stategies, they only care that you are purchasing their product.
A better solution might be to use a different product. Of course if there is no competing product that meets your needs, then you have to ask if your needs are so much more important than the needs of the market. Chances are Autodesk doesn't think so, not only that, their competitors that also don't meet your needs also probably don't think so.
Having unpopular intentions, and acting to conceal them through censorship are two different things. I can't find sympathy for those who believe the latter is any better than any criticism they censor, even when there's a little salt and pepper sprinkled on it.
I don't know where to draw the line in the sand. As you pointed out, I don't have the benefit of knowing what your post contained. However, as far as I am concerned, the content of the post is irrelevant. You could have just as well posted something about your child's birthday. The end result is the same. As participants in a forum that is managed by a company (in this case Autodesk), we have no reasonable expectation that our comments will remain on the site or that any specific comments will be allowed.
That might suck balls, but that is how it is. I don't have to agree with what Autodesk did, but I do support their right to do it.
That all being said, I would still be angry if they deleted my posts .. I might even escalate the anger to management .. heck I might even refuse to use their product. If enough folks did, they would soon see the error of their ways.
Does that make any sense?
-
Feel free to mislabel criticism as 'disparage', but that dog won't hunt here.
According to thesaurus.com, the definition of disparage is "criticize, detract from" .. but I'll accept criticize as an alternate word if you like, because they are essentially the same thing.
So, it is criticism you have an issue with?
Some of us have a flair for the dramatic, and others lack the intestinal fortitude and courage to take their lumps in public, as they should. That was only how I ended my comment. You didn't see the other 95% of it. But it sure is interesting that you could form an opinion based on how little you know about the rest of what I had to say in that comment, eh?
What you said or didn't say is irrelevant.
Sorry, it certainly is relevant. Let's not forget how many times we see people being maligned by being quoted out of context. I suppose that's fine as long as you're not the one that was quoted out of context.
My comments were based on what you provided here ... Perhaps my method of dealing with criticizm is different. I find I get what I want more often when I present a well thought out case.
Sorry, but that is a bit naive. You'll never get what you want when the one you are requesting it from cannot or will not reveal their true reasons and motives for their unwillingness to accomodate you in the first place. Do you actually believe they never considered making AutoCAD more capable of leveraging multiple processors? Do you honestly believe it is at all necessary for customers like you to educate them about the profound benefits that would result from multiple processor support? You talk as if this were the first time that anyone raised the issue of multiple processor support. Over the six years since Intel introduced the first multi-core CPU, hundreds if not thousands have already done what you say you would do, and tell us, what has it gotten them?
If I recall correctly, back when the first Core 2 processors were introduced, even many Autodesk people were seemingly excited about the possibilities, that is until management told them to stop talking about that, and to start talking about the cloud. It's more than ironic to see Kean Walmsley espousing the benefits of F# and parallel execution for developing plug-ins that leverage multiple processors, until he discovered that a major barricade to that goal was AutoCAD and its inherent lack of thread-safe code.
For example, rather than calling a product something that "was never brought out of the dark ages"
Again, that may be a bit dramatic, but also quite true.
I stand by my comments and I suspect that if someone came to your website and posted something about you or your product, you probably wouldn't think very long before removing the critical content.
Sorry, that's not true. First, I don't offer products that compete against each other, so I don't have to avoid having to admit that a product is intentionally being suffocated or neglected because my marketing objectives are to get customers to abandon it and switch to another product I'm offering them.
I welcome criticism as long as it is reasonably constructive, even if it expressed with a bit of dramatic flair. I would be happy to confront and address any and all legitimate criticism I get, not only on a website, but anywhere I post code or participate in community discussions. Most competent professionals have no problem with receiving criticism publicily, because they can deal with it. What I've noticed is that those who usually don't react well to public criticism are charletans and others that are in the habit of grossly misrepresenting their professional qualifications to others.
That doesn't make them a good company or their actions good. I merely stated that their actions were justifiable because they own the forum. As owners, they have the right to delete whatever they decide to delete (or not delete as far as that is concerned).
Whether it is within their right to censor is not the issue. We all know they are within their right to do it, but having the right to do it doesn't mean doing it is right.
If more customers were hammering away at them over the years in public rather than using the means they provide (which is by-design intended to keep customer feedback out of the public eye), then I very much doubt that today we would still have an AutoCAD that can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
You are absolutely correct!
I also suspect that just about every company keeps its negative customer feedback private. To make it public would be counter-productive to their marketing needs.
Well you're wrong about that. Microsoft and many others do not make their customer feedback private. They have portals that anyone can visit to view it. You can even go there and see my own negative feedback.
As far as marketing needs, that's the whole point. It is keeping their marketing agenda out of public discussion that is their underlying goal for censoring and keeping customer feedback non-public. And who cares about the customers that make major, long-term investments in the products they would like to retire, right?
I'm confident that the reason Autodesk has left AutoCAD to languish in the single-threaded, single-cpu world, is mainly because their long-term strategy is to migrate customers away from AutoCAD, to other products, and/or to the 'cloud' and more significantly, SAAS.
That may very well be the case. I can't fault them for that either. Would you rather they simply stopped producing AutoCAD, then force their clients to move to other solutions? That wouldn't be very smart now would it. However, if they "encourage" their clients to migrate because "Hey this *other* product does exactly what you are asking for in *this* product", then so be it. Many will migrate and their business strategies will be met.
If that had worked (which I don't believe it has), there would've been be no need to leave the legacy product impaired, or to sabotage it (or perhaps you don't even suspect that the AutoCAD 2013 online documentation is a form of sabotage?).
Contrary to what you seem to be saying (you will correct me if I am wrong), Autodesk doesn't need to be concerned with whether their product meets your long-term stategies, they only care that you are purchasing their product.
A better solution might be to use a different product. Of course if there is no competing product that meets your needs, then you have to ask if your needs are so much more important than the needs of the market. Chances are Autodesk doesn't think so, not only that, their competitors that also don't meet your needs also probably don't think so.
I know many who are using different products, for a variety of reasons. That's why Autodesk spends so much money on lawyers, attacking competitors that use orange boxes in product logos, and the letters 'DWG' in their product names. If you can't beat them solely on the merits of your products, then just call in the lawyers. What those competitors are doing to Autodesk is not much different than what Autodesk did to the minicomputer and mainframe CADD vendors of the 80's and 90'.
Having unpopular intentions, and acting to conceal them through censorship are two different things. I can't find sympathy for those who believe the latter is any better than any criticism they censor, even when there's a little salt and pepper sprinkled on it.
I don't know where to draw the line in the sand. As you pointed out, I don't have the benefit of knowing what your post contained. However, as far as I am concerned, the content of the post is irrelevant. You could have just as well posted something about your child's birthday. The end result is the same. As participants in a forum that is managed by a company (in this case Autodesk), we have no reasonable expectation that our comments will remain on the site or that any specific comments will be allowed.
That might suck balls, but that is how it is. I don't have to agree with what Autodesk did, but I do support their right to do it.
That all being said, I would still be angry if they deleted my posts .. I might even escalate the anger to management .. heck I might even refuse to use their product. If enough folks did, they would soon see the error of their ways.
Does that make any sense?
one of the two posts is debatable, the other is clearly not. Censoring someone because they disagree with a statement about performance and wasted effort, is clearly out of bounds.
-
Tony, I read your comments and saw nothing that warranted removal. It struck a chord with me because I've been bemused by the Autodesk push for the cloud in favour of other options.
I recall when reading the microsecond latency cost comment that I wondered if AutoDesk had calculated how much each product crash cost users; and how much they had saved at the cost to developers (and users) by not providing timely documentation.
Huez,
TheSwamp posting policy is fairly clear ; so I assume you were being amusing :)
I'm confident that Autodesk did its homework WRT multiple processor support (looking at both the cost to them, and the benefit to customers). IMO, AutoCAD is artificially overpriced, and far too much of the revenue derived from it is diverted to other products and services. Instead of doing the right thing, and undertaking the major effort required to bring AutoCAD out of the dark ages (WRT to multiple processor support), they are taking an approach that will ultimately lead to unprecedented levels of ill will and customer discontent.
-
heck I might even refuse to use their product. If enough folks did, they would soon see the error of their ways.
If enough people did they would just end up throwing enough money to buy out whatever product people were using then screw it up.
-
I was going to post a long response, but decided against it. Instead, I offer this thought.
If Autodesk is so evil and is out to force people to use an inferior product, why the hell do you use it? Why not use Microstation or Briscad ... or any of the other comparable products? Could it be because those products don't meet your expectation?
-
I was going to post a long response, but decided against it. Instead, I offer this thought.
If Autodesk is so evil and is out to force people to use an inferior product, why the hell do you use it? Why not use Microstation or Briscad ... or any of the other comparable products? Could it be because those products don't meet your expectation?
All large corporations are evil. They are all driven by greed and the need to appease shareholders. Autodesk is not exclusive in that respect.
I provide custom solutions for anything that can be programmed, not just AutoCAD.
Does that answer your question?
As far as the question of why I or most others use AutoCAD, you apparently don't understand why most people use it. Most who do, don't need most of what it offers, and other competing products are more than capable of serving their needs. So given that, and the fact that competing products cost less (and in some cases, are free), why do people use AutoCAD rather than some competing solution that would serve their needs?
The reason is quite simple. CADD software purchasing decisions are not based on the qualities of the product in a vacuum. They are based on the need for and cost of data Interoperability with those whom they must collaborate and share data with. So, even though XYZCadd may provide a good solution for many, if they must exchange data with others who are using DWG files, and worse, AutoCAD-produced DWG files, then it may not be a good solution, for that reason alone.
So does that answer your other question?
-
I was going to post a long response, but decided against it. Instead, I offer this thought.
If Autodesk is so evil and is out to force people to use an inferior product, why the hell do you use it? Why not use Microstation or Briscad ... or any of the other comparable products? Could it be because those products don't meet your expectation?
All about what the people paying us require.
When 99% of money coming in is from projects that require AutoCAD as all of clients require dwg's and we receive dwg's created with AutoCAD and to make sure we will be able to modify, update, and use it and send dwg's that is AutoCAd supported.
If there were more paying clients that required Revit than we would use Revit.
If there were a abundance of good paying clients that wanted 3D models made out of popsicle sticks and dried macaroni. I would be covered in Elmer's glue every week.
Most government bodies that we have done work for require AutoCAD 2007 file format.
-
All large corporations are evil.
That is all that you needed to say. With that kind of attitude, we can't have a reasonable discussion.
All about what the people paying us require.
When 99% of money coming in is from projects that require AutoCAD as all of clients require dwg's and we receive dwg's created with AutoCAD and to make sure we will be able to modify, update, and use it and send dwg's that is AutoCAd supported.
If there were more paying clients that required Revit than we would use Revit.
If there were a abundance of good paying clients that wanted 3D models made out of popsicle sticks and dried macaroni. I would be covered in Elmer's glue every week.
Most government bodies that we have done work for require AutoCAD 2007 file format.
If I felt that strongly about the company that makes my livelyhood possible, I'm afraid I'd have to find another line of work.
I guess it is a good thing that I could not give a crap about Autodesk or Microsoft. Sure, I can lament with the best, but without that evil corporation providing me with software, I wouldn't have worked in the field I loved for 22 years. Whew, what a relief!
But, like you, if my boss required that I write code in notepad, I'd do it .. after all, he IS paying the bill. I don't have to like the tools I am relegated to use, but I sure as hell am not going to piss off the only company that has the tools that I require to do my job.
-
If I felt that strongly about the company that makes my livelyhood possible, I'm afraid I'd have to find another line of work.
If my boss walked in tomorrow morning and said let me know by the end of day but pick any and drafting or CAD software for us to start using and price does not matter, do not worry about clients send, etc....
I would choose AutoCAD.
It might just be the field, area, clients or whatever but I have never opened or seen MicroStation, a little while back would hear that CORP and clients were going to start requiring Revit and started to learn it but have seen one job where one building(about 1% of the job) was done in Revit.
In all of my expirences they got the market locked down.
I just wish there was competitor.
-
If Autodesk is so evil and is out to force people to use an inferior product, why the hell do you use it? Why not use Microstation or Briscad ... or any of the other comparable products? Could it be because those products don't meet your expectation?
Perhaps this might help illustrate just how naive these questions are.
A quote from this article (http://www.moldmakingtechnology.com/articles/cad-interoperability-its-bottom-line-costs-to-mold-design-and-manufacturing):
More than 500 respondents participated in a second survey, which focused exclusively on companies exchanging CAD files with external clients only—primarily job shops, like mold manufacturers, and second- and third-tier suppliers. These companies generally have limited financial resources, yet their livelihood depends on being able to compete in a complex multi-CAD environment. This survey confirmed that the lack of CAD standardization is placing a heavy burden on these companies.
For example, over one-third of respondents (37 percent) said that their use of a particular CAD tool and ability to share files in a particular format was part of the reason they gained business in the first place, indicating that a high percentage of OEMs make it their business to ask about CAD usage during the decision making process.
-
I think censorship of any kind does a disservice to the community at large, and the censor in particular.
Instead of attempting to silence the dissent, their enrgies would be best spent removing the the causes of it.
The end state would be a better product, happier customers and larger profits.
-
You may think my questions are naive, but having worked with AutoCAD for 22 years, I have seen all sorts of products that do a similar job and I know a great many companies do use non-Autodesk products, and they do so quite successfully.
For the last 10 years of my career using AutoCAD, (I no longer use it), I was provided with a great number of different file formats from a host of different development platforms. When I completed my work and supplied them with a DWG file (if that was their desire), there was never a problem. Interactivity between different cad packages is only limited to the knowledge of the person using the product.
This isn't rocket science. Maybe I worked in a unique situation where I didn't care what software created the design (it could be a drawing on a napkin for all I care) .. when my client is paying my rates, I produce what they want, how they want, using whatever tools they are willing to pay for. How I get from point to point is irrelevant. Sure there could be more efficient ways to do things, and sometimes I wished my design software was better equipped to do the things I needed to do, but it didn't matter because I would have drawn the stupid documents with a crayon if that is what they wanted.
If you don't like the tools, or the company that builds the tool, find a different tool or charge the client enough to cover your dislike of that tool.
I think censorship of any kind does a disservice to the community at large, and the censor in particular.
Instead of attempting to silence the dissent, their enrgies would be best spent removing the the causes of it.
The end state would be a better product, happier customers and larger profits.
This whole idea that Autodesk is censoring what people say is silly. You only have the right to post on their website what they allow you to post .. and only when you act within guidelines that they deem correct.
What if someone posted pornography or a list of competitors tools that does the same job or better. Would you support their decision to remove those posts?
In case you didn't notice, using the rubric described here would mean the entire internet is engaged in censorship, with theswamp being one of the most egregious offenders.
-
Their sandbox, their rules. If they decide that all posts must end with "Long live the Big Dog! WOOF!" they are perfectly within their rights.
Anybody who isn't in the strategic planning group of AutoDesk is only guessing at what their objectives and goals are (and are not). At some point its important to admit that we just. don't. know. I know it's been one of my biggest struggles, as I know quite a bit and can figure out a lot more, but sometimes its more important to not play the expert.
-
"Long live the Big Dog! WOOF!"
LOL .. maybe that is what is clouding my perspective .. once upon a time, I was "Top Dawg" at an AUGI event.
-
:-D
The actual reference is to a role-playing game developer who frequented some of the discussion boards for his work. When players wanted his specific attention to game mechanics, they were instructed to "WOOF!" the subject line so he could pick them out quickly. Looked rediculous, but thats how those boards operated.
-
I understand, I was simply being facetious
-
The proper way to do this is to delete the offending post and then provide an explanation for the deletion i.e. trolling, off topic, against rules. Lets everyone know where they stand.
From reading the posts it would seem the Masters reputation has gone before him and Stephen Preston is taking the criticism personally. It would be interesting to see if the points were remade in a manner that used straight forward technical language with no creative embellishments if they would remain on the blog post.
-
From reading the posts it would seem the Masters reputation has gone before him and Stephen Preston is taking the criticism personally. It would be interesting to see if the points were remade in a manner that used straight forward technical language with no creative embellishments if they would remain on the blog post.
How do you know Stephen took it personally or he was the one to delete it?
How do you know how the points were made and laid out?
From reading the posts the only thing I can tell is the first comment ended with something similar to
"Sure - It's got a modern, glitzy user interface, but still can't walk and chew gum at the same time".
-
Hi,
What I can say is that censoring is the result of fear to the truth, as anything (you write) other than true can be easily refuted.
Gaston Nunez
-
Hi,
What I can say is that censoring is the result of fear to the truth, as anything (you write) other than true can be easily refuted.
Gaston Nunez
No, it can't. In some circumstances even an accusation can prove damaging. If fact, it can be extremely difficult to prove a negative especially once the false information has gained traction in the internet.
-
This is a thought provoking discussion.
This comment made me think.
All large corporations are evil. They are all driven by greed and the need to appease shareholders. Autodesk is not exclusive in that respect.
Not to put too fine a point on it but greed is the evil. It has brought the worlds economy to it's knees and will do worse.
The revenue stream drives where Autodesk (or another company) allocates it's resources. There isn't much of a stream into Autodesk from developers who subscribe to ADN and none at all from developers who are not ADN members. So it isn't surprising to me that there are . . . gaps?
The focus is on consumers of their product not on developers of other products for consumption.
-
About moving AutoCAD to the cloud.
You remember when you were in your early and mid twenties and you would go out partying and stay out all night long, and there was always that one guy that was just a little too old to be hanging out.
He would look funny and out of place trying to wear what the kids were wearing at that time.
The broke sluts would hang out with him because he would always pay for drinks.
He was usually cool but you always thought shouldn't he be hanging out with his kids or getting up early to go blind shopping at Home Depot.
Sure it is fun to go to all the cool bars and staying up partying to 8:00 in the morning, but leave that to the younger kids who it is meant for.
So the great fun places is the cloud, and the kids are software that is written in a way that would be beneficial to be put in the cloud, and AutoCAD is that guy.
AutoCAD do not be that guy.
-
I concur, moving ANY mission critical software or data to "the cloud" is stupid and puts end users at the mercy of flaky internet service providers, poor connectivity issues and may cause their data to be breached by nefarious folks.
That might sound like a tin-foil hat declaration, but I have lost my connectivity many times and if I could not have worked locally, I would have been at a standstill.
-
An interesting (and pretty diverse) thread - I really should stop by more often! Anyway, I thought you just might want to hear the opinion of someone evil. :evil:
I'm stepping in with a couple of comments... (and don't have the energy to get involved in the cloud discussion, right now, so am choosing to sidestep that one ;-))
As a blogger I have only ever deleted comments (not including SPAM) when they have either said something illegal (e.g. "where can I get a cracked version of AutoCAD?") or insulting (usually to others, so far I've been OK with people having a go at me). But then I've been lucky enough to not have too many of either category - probably because I write my own blog, and so any comments tend to be targeted at an individual (me). When a blog has multiple (and I won't say "anonymous" - the word I'm looking for is probably "unfamiliar") authors, it's easier to say things that are blunt to the point of being disrespectful. Just to be clear - I haven't read the comments that have been removed, so this is not me passing judgment. I did want to step in to say some words in defense of whoever is managing the DevBlog's comments, though.
Whoever deleted the comments - and it could well have been Stephen, although there are lots of authors who have access the blog - surely did so to the best of their judgment. I'm almost certain that any removal of comments was done to keep the blog's tone respectful - not to stamp on dissent or criticism, per se. This isn't a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned: contributors to the blog - whether authors or commentators - should feel they can do so without risking being abused for it. Perhaps it's cultural - we Brits tend to prefer public criticism when it's stated diplomatically - but then this blog also has a broad (and diverse) audience to cater to.
That was comment number 1... onto the next:
It's more than ironic to see Kean Walmsley espousing the benefits of F# and parallel execution for developing plug-ins that leverage multiple processors, until he discovered that a major barricade to that goal was AutoCAD and its inherent lack of thread-safe code.
Well, no. I continue to espouse the benefits of F# and asynchronous programming models, I'm just a bit attention deficit. :-) I certainly didn't simply stop when I "discovered" an issue inside AutoCAD's architecture: I've spent quite some time and effort describing appropriate models for dealing with asynchronous calls in a way that works well with a single-threaded application (my favourite being to use an Erlang-inspired mailbox architecture).
Anyway - that's all I wanted to say. I would apologise for posting something off topic, but then this thread has covered so much ground I suspect it isn't needed.
Cheers,
Kean
-
Kean, we try to be both interesting and diverse, but most of the time we just like to stir the pot and then sit back, eat popcorn and watch the fireworks.
Perhaps you would get a better feeling for the folks here if you did hang out a bit more.
-
I'm a bigtime AutoCAD power user and can push the program to certain limits, but I'm the farthest thing from a developer. That being said, going back to the original poster's 1st comment, I tend to definitely agree.... through the years it seems Autodesk just builds on top of the last file format. I made a post over at CADTutor not too long ago about AutoCAD needing to be brought into the 21st century. I wish they would simply start over with a blank template. It doesn't have to be all Inventor/Revit-like with parametric capabilities to that extent but it would be nice if it could be completely reconstructed as a platform, instead of "adding functionality with a prettier interface".
Once again my thoughts might be completely useless because I know nothing of the functionality "under the hood" of the program. And while I might add, end result is all that matters, it just seems they (Autodesk) would benefit by releasing a brand spanking new AutoCAD to the world.
Just my $0.02 is all. :kewl:
-
Perhaps you would get a better feeling for the folks here if you did hang out a bit more.
I'm sure I would... I just always seems to find it difficult to make the time.
I do appreciate the odd email (a few regular Swamp contributors have been good at that, in the past), to let me know of topics I might helpfully weigh in on.
Kean
-
I'm confident that the reason Autodesk has left AutoCAD to languish in the single-threaded, single-cpu world, is mainly because their long-term strategy is to migrate customers away from AutoCAD, to other products, and/or to the 'cloud' and more significantly, SAAS.
I agree with comments of JGGerth, PLawton and davea responding to this post:
http://through-the-interface.typepad.com/through_the_interface/2012/03/moving-to-the-cloud.html
@ daveea:
Yes, in the 1960's it was called "time-sharing," and was a boon, in the days of batch processing via punched cards and mag tape.
@ JGGerth:
Although my ISP is generally quite reliable, I did experience an "outage" last year which lasted the better part of a work week, and was traceable to a problem with AT&T routers. AT&T are not my ISP, although in this case my ISP were entirely at the mercy of AT&T, and so was I.
SaS is a non-starter for me, for that reason alone.
As well, we use AutoCAD principally as a graphics platform which runs (extensive) third party ARX application(s). At the moment, I am anticipating the imminent release of an ACAD 2013 compatible release of the primary software with which I earn my living. ACAD 2013 itself, was of course released last spring.
It goes without saying that neither I nor anyone of my acquaintance can afford to shut down our businesses because Adesk chooses to "upgrade" their software (the underlying graphics platform) whilst the vendor of the discipline specific software with which we make our living has not "kept up" with the "upgrade," aka "breaking changes."
-
Kean, we try to be both interesting and diverse, but most of the time we just like to stir the pot and then sit back, eat popcorn and watch the fireworks.
Perhaps you would get a better feeling for the folks here if you did hang out a bit more.
Screw the fireworks, I'm waiting for the mushroom cloud.
I haven't even started picking on the cloud biz yet, but I'll drop a hint here.
Recently I overheard an interesting conversation about cybersecurity. To sum it up. the total amount of money that Microsoft, Autodesk, Oracle, Apple, Google, and the US DOD currently spend, in aggregate, on cyber-security and securing their servers from intrusion, is but a tiny fraction of what China spends on state-sponsored cyber-activities for military and commercial espionage purposes.
Anyone that tells you their cloud hosting is secure, is blowing smoke up your ass.
-
..............is but a tiny fraction of what China spends on state-sponsored cyber-activities for military and commercial espionage purposes.
China is a close trading partner and one of our most trusted allies.
China would never spy, steal, copy, or bootleg any intelllectual or copyrighted information from the U.S.. :wink:
-
It's more than ironic to see Kean Walmsley espousing the benefits of F# and parallel execution for developing plug-ins that leverage multiple processors, until he discovered that a major barricade to that goal was AutoCAD and its inherent lack of thread-safe code.
Well, no. I continue to espouse the benefits of F# and asynchronous programming models, I'm just a bit attention deficit. :-) I certainly didn't simply stop when I "discovered" an issue inside AutoCAD's architecture: I've spent quite some time and effort describing appropriate models for dealing with asynchronous calls in a way that works well with a single-threaded application (my favourite being to use an Erlang-inspired mailbox architecture).
Anyway - that's all I wanted to say. I would apologise for posting something off topic, but then this thread has covered so much ground I suspect it isn't needed.
Cheers,
Kean
Well, I won't deny that there can be benefits for plug-ins that use parallel execution, and I've realized some myself, but the user isn't spending nearly as much time waiting for plugins, as they are waiting for AutoCAD to do things, and that's where parallelism would make a profound difference.
That said, I also understand that it's a lofty goal that would require a massive overhaul of a huge codebase and probably introduce thousands of bugs and break customization (which seems to be happening with each release anyway). But, I think 6+ years without seeing any real progress (that doesn't mean there hasn't been any, but none that's visible - which is what customers care about) is a a long time.
-
I'm a bigtime AutoCAD power user and can push the program to certain limits, but I'm the farthest thing from a developer. That being said, going back to the original poster's 1st comment, I tend to definitely agree.... through the years it seems Autodesk just builds on top of the last file format. I made a post over at CADTutor not too long ago about AutoCAD needing to be brought into the 21st century. I wish they would simply start over with a blank template. It doesn't have to be all Inventor/Revit-like with parametric capabilities to that extent but it would be nice if it could be completely reconstructed as a platform, instead of "adding functionality with a prettier interface".
Once again my thoughts might be completely useless because I know nothing of the functionality "under the hood" of the program. And while I might add, end result is all that matters, it just seems they (Autodesk) would benefit by releasing a brand spanking new AutoCAD to the world.
Just my $0.02 is all. :kewl:
It seems to me that the intent of the design of the last handful of major releases of AutoCAD is to act as a platform that demonstrates the functionality of other products, carefully designed in a way that doesn't make them very useful in the real world, because obviously that would defeat the purpose. I don't have an issue with that, but touting embedded demos or 'teaser' features from other products as AutoCAD features that are actually useful in the real world, when in fact, they are somewhat crippled, just doesn't sit well with me.
The completely unscriptable FLATSHOT command is one of many examples.
-
One thing I wish Autodesk would completely do away with in and re-develop in AutoCAD is Plot Styles. To me, Revit got it right on the first attempt when it comes to line weights and thicknesses. In my opinion, Plot Styles are so horrible, and due to their nature every firm or company has their "own", it creates zero standard that makes sense and I always have to try and match, or open and figure out what color is what line thickness, etc. List goes on. I almost want to back charge Autodesk every time I have to mess with them.
-
One thing I wish Autodesk would completely do away with in and re-develop in AutoCAD is Plot Styles. To me, Revit got it right on the first attempt when it comes to line weights and thicknesses. In my opinion, Plot Styles are so horrible, and due to their nature every firm or company has their "own", it creates zero standard that makes sense and I always have to try and match, or open and figure out what color is what line thickness, etc. List goes on. I almost want to back charge Autodesk every time I have to mess with them.
Revit, Inventor and other products incorporate a lot of the lessons learned from AutoCAD.
Doing away with or completely revamping a feature might seem like an improvement, but the problem is that it usually breaks compatibility with older drawings, scripts, and so forth.
-
Yep, I agree. That's why I stated I "wish" because that's all it'll ever be, haha. A man can dream, right? Or just stay in Revit from now on.
:angel: