Re: SolidWorks is cool, sort of (but FreeCAD might be better)

On 6/18/2025 4:47 PM, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 6/18/2025 2:22 PM, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

The problem is not the codebase maintenance. You can happily live without
forever as long as you still have hardware it runs on.

>
Then you just pick an OLDER "perpetual" version and live without the
"new features" that were added when the license became time-sensitive.
>
Ask me why I run W7 on my machines...

 OK, can you tell how can one pick an OLDER "perpetual" Altium Designer
version (actually license) if he didn't have it before? I do have a

You can't.  What you CAN do is not upgrade when you see the license
terms changing in a way that you don't like.
I stopped upgrading my Adobe tools when they went to the "CC" series.
I knowingly forfeit any improvements in the tools in order to avoid that
"online" issue.

perpetual license and grandfathered subscription valid until the end of
March 2027 so my last version will be whatever is out before that
subscription expired. However, if you didn't have a perpetual license before
where are you going to get one?
 And I'm not only running Windoze 7 for some older stuff, I even have XP
64-bit with full development environment for Windoze Embedded CE 6.1 (?).
That does NOT have a time-limited license so it will run forever in a VM
that I have for it. I even have NT somewhere :)

I have VMs for tools running back more than 30 years.  Previously, I had
set aside a physical computer to support development environments that
I had used for early projects.  Originally, dumping the disk image onto
9T tape so I could reuse a single physical machine for multiple project
environments.  Later, swapping physical disks to provide the environment
that was in use.
[Ultimately, replacing physical machines with virtual machines to
facilitate discarding the old hardware -- except for those environments
that required specific hardware]

The FUNDAMENTAL difference is that unlike [almost] ALL modern commercial
software the older software had PERPETUAL licenses and OSS doesn't have any
at all. Those will NOT stop working in a year because your license expired
and it is too expensive or impossible at all to renew it for another year.

>
But, they may contain flaws that make them unusable until someone
"volunteers" to fix them.

 If you were using it before you can still use it forever. If those flaws was
making them unusable you wouldn't have been able using it before. All your

That's specious reasoning.  You may never have tried to do a copper pour.
Or, an 8 layer pad stack.  Or, a 500 pin component symbol.  etc.
I stopped using MS's compilers when I tried to take a pointer to a member
function and the compiler gagged.  Previously, it had generated correct
code.

old designs that were made with that tool clearly tell it was not unusable
because of those flaws and you need that tool to either reuse whatever you
did (less likely) or to support it by fixing bugs and whatever else (more
likely). You will be not able to do either when you tool ceased to work.

You don't own the software.  ANY software (save any that you create
yourself).  So, you are at the mercy of the actual owner of that software.
If you don't like his terms (given the benefits of the tool), then you
are free to find another.

I own two copies of Brief.  But, can't use either of them because
the code is "too fast" for modern hardware.  So, the money spent
on them is no longer yielding benefits for me.
>
Ditto for the DASH suite.  Wonderful if I have a need to return to
one of those old designs for some (paid!) maintenance.  But, otherwise,
an unperforming investment.
>

If this happens you'll end up holding a bag -- all your work done with those
tools is useless now and you can't do anything to something you still have

>
You still have the IP.  You just don't have it in a compatible tool
that you WANT to pay for.
>
Are you planning on making any money "supporting" the design for
which you used these tools?  If so, then the tool still has financial
value to you -- even if you gripe about not wanting to have to keep
"renting" it.
>
Would you prefer they charge you $100K for a perpetual license?
Are you sure you will have future need to justify that outlay?

 I paid for my perpetual Altium Designer license the same price they charge
now for one year time-limited one.

Then you should be grateful!  Others no longer have that option.
SWMBO uses an (ancient -- 2K?) MSOffice suite to maintain her databases.
She made a deliberate decision NOT to upgrade to features (and
constraints!) that she wasn't comfortable with.  Has she missed out on some
features that might have benefitted her?  I know it's always tedious
to install it on OSs that are considerably newer; eventually, she will be
"stuck" with whichever the most recent OS simply because something will
be incompatible with OS version N+1.

I was also been paying for "subscription"
which is 1/4..1/3 of that price per year that gives me access to all new
versions but I won't lose any functionality when it expires and I don't want
or can't renew it. It will just leave me with the latest version available
before it expired. And that last version will be still working forever.
 

I.e., there is a certain sense in renting software; pay for what
you *use*.  But, that assumes you can rent it "a la carte".

 This is an option, yes. And good guys do offer that. E.g. Toyota allows you
to purchase a Techstream (absolute necessity if you want to do anything more
complex than tire replacement on a Toyota/Lexus vehicle) licence in WEEK
increments for a very reasonable price. You don't need it everyday unless
you are in auto repair business so that is reasonable. They don't insist on
purchasing a full year "subscription" for a ridiculous price. However, there
is no guarantee they will behave like this forever so I also have an old
laptop with Techstream (the older one but my Lexus LS460L is not the newest
and fully supported by that version; however you still need their FULL
version with Internet connection to the mothership if you need to re-program
some ECU). Not a COMPLETE solution but better than nothing and it allows to
do almost everything except a few things that require tethering to the
mothership.

As they own the software (tool), they can decide what and how to charge
for it.  If they assume most of their customers are dealerships, they
don't need to be "reasonable" supporting individual users.

My gripe is with tools that I may have to "rent" JUST IN CASE their
might be a future use.  Let me pay for 30 days of use 5 years from today,
as the need arises.  NOT for the next 5 years where it is sitting idle!

 The problem is you might be not able to get it in 5 years AT ALL, no matter
what's the price you are ready to pay. And paying "rent" for all those 5
years does not guarantee anything -- when (not "if") the company that made
that tool goes bust you are fried. It is not even like buying vs renting
your house -- you can find a different one any time unlike those tools that
are all unique and once they gone there is no replacement.

There are replacements.  It's just that the cost of making the switch is
high.  Just like moving into a different house!

to support. Not just some ancient stuff but something one year old or even
newer because your tools stopped working and there is no way to make them
work again.

>
Run it in a VM.  Take a snapshot of it on day one.  When the license
expires, reset the clock and reload from the original image.  Lather,
rinse, repeat.

 That was only good in early naive days where everything was extremely simple
and there was no Internet. Many tools these days won't even start if they
can't connect to the mother ship to check your license. Which is also a
great simplification, it is more complex than that and gets even more
sophisticated by the day...

But, that's their perogative.  You are free to NOT use their tools.
They aren't preventing you from performing those activities; they
are just setting the terms for your performance WITH their tools.
I maintain a *working* development environments for every project I've
created.  There is some cost to doing so.  But, I provide "lifetime,
free bug-fixes" to clients.  So, it's a gamble that I make regarding
the effort that *I* will have to expend to recreate a particular
environment *if* a bug is uncovered.
However, I don't make any guarantees to add features to projects that
I've completed.  (I'm typically off on some other project with little
concern for embelishing some PAST design)
Several times, clients have contacted me because they failed to
maintain such a development environment and now find themselves
wanting to make changes to my design (inhouse or with some other
agency) -- only to discover that they "can't get there from here";
they can't edit a schematic, alter a layout, patch a bit of code,
etc.  Because they can't get the tools that they purchased to run
on a "modern" OS!
Should I charge usurious rates to take on those projects?
Projects that I *don't* want?  Or, just let them realize the
consequences of NOT having proper engineering and CM practices
in place?  (I've had clients ask me to recover the source
code for their products -- not of my design -- because THEY
failed to keep it!  You only make this mistake ONCE)
I've worked with firms that relied on licensed third party
products to incorporate *in* their own products.  And, the
third party ELECTING not to sell any more licenses for the
"old" version, thereby mandating a reengineering of the
product to accommodate the new licensed component.
When You don't control EVERY aspect of your development environment,
you're at SOMEONE's mercy!