(Example: Do we need a Linux version of ArchiCAD?)

[Anonymous]

Is GS trying to tell us something? Or are they just teasing? Anyone have any thoughts or insights to this? I'm all for Linux compatibility.

[Anonymous]

So if OSx runs on a version of FreeBSD what are the odds that AC will run on a bonafied version freeBSD? I've been thinking seriously of going back to Linux on my home system but was pretty unhappy with Redhat.

[Anonymous]

Of course we need a port to linux system. All my servers are linux boxes. Stable and secure.
If we can get linux ported archicad we kick out our Win-Workstations out of the office and get Linux-ones.



Mario

[Anonymous]

brother wrote:
If we can get linux ported archicad we kick out our Win-Workstations out of the office and get Linux-ones.

You could just install Linux after a reformat !

If you still want to kick them out, send them to me, I'll pay the transport fee

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the post error

[Anonymous]

and another post error

[Anonymous]

and another

[Anonymous]

I must say that I have always been very skeptical of Linux. It is a geek oriented OS. Although extrememly stable and secure and it now has a seemingly great office suite and it's free and thousands of programs for it are free it is still stiffled by what I'll call lack of a consistent vision, maybe. As architects we should all be able to recognize good design and usability. Linux has good structural design, but not good comprehensive design as far as making itself an obviously usable and superior OS for architectural workstations (or other mainstream work).

After upgrading to Mac OS 10.3 it's pretty obvious to me that there IS a real vision about overal design and user experience on the Mac and IMHO that coupled with it's good structural design and really excellent industrial design in it's hardware makes it superior. It seems like it would be the obvious OS choice for anyone, but especially Architects since our lives are all about design, function and experience and creating it for others.

There are so many great things in OS 10.3 that the comparison is sort of like coming from a job at a museum to a job at factory.

Wouldn't it be great if Apple released OSX for Intel and/or made it's OS free (and figured out how to make money by alternate methods)! It seems to me that the things linux has going for it are:

1. Stability
2. Security
3. It's FREE
4. Most apps for it are free
5. It runs on nearly all hardware

But, for most of us that won't be enough. I wonder, though why GS would even suggest something like this by putting it in the description of this forum topic. Personally, I can't see even moderate numbers of architects switching to the free linux, using a free office suite and then buying a $4000 architectural software app to run on it. Especially given the total linux user experience. But, I've always thought that GS should lower the price of AC anyway in order to increase the number of users. Price DOES matter. Why do you think so many architects user pirated Autodesk software? Why do you think so many architects use Vectorworks? Just think what would happen to the user base if AC dropped to the sub-$1000 price point.

[Anonymous]

IMHO the focus on free is incorrect and the focus on stability and strength is more important. Yes it is geeky - I can't get the *&^%$^* thing to install correctly on either of my two machines with a form of XP. The system really needs to be by itself on it's own disk. BUT when it was running on an old AMD 200 system it did what the vendors say it would do - and quite well. It would not, however do what I need - to do architecture via Archicad.

The MAC OS is really clean and likeable - the proprietary hardware requirement is the limiting factor. I have hoped for years that MAC OS would be available for Intel and AMD hardware and that it could then be universal. Since it seems unlikely that Steve is going to do that anytime soon, the potential to switch to a form of Linux is the next best thing.

Only hoping

[stefan]

Eric wrote:
It seems to me that the things linux has going for it are:

1. Stability
2. Security
3. It's FREE
4. Most apps for it are free
5. It runs on nearly all hardware

1. because it doesn't support as many hardware and applications as Windows does, it is understandable that Linux is more stable. Windows NT & 2000 are more stable then Windows 98 & ME, partly because they support less.

2. security? I'm not an expert so I'll keep quiet on this matter.

3. It's sometimes free. The OS is often free (you have to pay for a full box with manuals and often for some licensed applications).

4. Most small and simple apps. Popular 3D-games, most CAD-applications, business applications are often not free and cost as much as the PC-version.

5. runs on nearly all hardware? That is the same for the Windows OS.

I personally don't have any reason to use Linux. I have a box with Suse at home that is gathering dust (and CD's with Slackware, Corel Linux, WinLinux, ...). It took a long time to install, didn't like my Geforce card even though the box included drivers for it (every media- & 3D-application crashed my "stable" Linux). It was a hard time to get my azerty-keyboard recognised and my non-standard mouse. And every application I need is available for Windows.
I didn't want to spend all my time installing it and tweaking it. Once it was running, I didn't use it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Just clarifying...

1. Stability
I think it's actually because of the nature of the operating system, also. I'm no expert either so I can't elaborate too much, but quite a bit of the internet now runs on linux because it's so stable and secure.

2. Security
No expert here either, but I've read this in many places.

3. It's FREE
You're right. Most distributions cost if you want the version with an installer and/or a CD. A lot of the distributions have free binaries for download.

4. Most apps for it are free
A lot of the software I've seen for linux is open source/GPL type software which is usually free (and quite difficult to compile/install unless geekly inclined)

5. It runs on nearly all hardware
Of course, this is in comparison to other non-windows operating systems. Mac OSX is of course a variation of *nix but only runs on Macs, for instance

I really think that anyone who considers linux owes it to themselves to try OS X. It's really the only other "mainstream" desktop OS and it's so good now that it is very possible that it's better than Windows XP. My guess is that anyone considering linux who tries OS X would probably reject X because of the premium one would pay for the hardware even though there would probably be a significant operational cost savings vs. windows variants and related hardware over the lifespan of the hardware. I think that most architectural firms don't consider such intangibles when purchasing computer equipment or establishing budgets to (yeah, right...architectural firms with an IT budget! )