Outside The Box
Random thoughts about AutoCAD, ObjectARX, and the meaning of life.
All Original Content Copyright 2006 - 2008 Owen Wengerd, All Rights Reserved
2009-03-01
I want to consider software licensing practices in general, but with the specific facts and history in the Vernor vs. Autodesk lawsuit as a backdrop.
In the Vernor case, Tim Vernor purchased several boxes of AutoCAD software, and never even read, let alone agreed to, the terms of the license agreement inside the box. When Vernor listed the AutoCAD software for sale on Ebay, Autodesk sent Ebay a notice that claimed Vernor's auction violated Autodesk's copyright. In order to benefit from the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Ebay was obligated to remove the auctions. Vernor responded by filing a lawsuit accusing Autodesk of making false copyright violation claims.
Additional facts have since come to light. For one, we've learned that the AutoCAD software that Vernor purchased had been previously upgraded to a newer version. Vernor did not know this when he purchased the software; and in any case, it's not clear that this fact has any bearing on the outcome of the suit.
Given this set of facts, let's analyze the Vernor case not from a purely legal perspective, but from a more abstract "moral" perspective. After all, society is the ultimate arbitrator of what is wrong and what is right with respect to our laws. We ultimately determine whether laws are fair by whether we follow them willingly (and whether we put pressure on our legislatures to change them).
Steve Johnson opines that Autodesk is morally right in the Vernor case, because the software Vernor purchased was "tainted" due to having been upgraded by the original owner.In Steve's view... [see Steve's comment below where he chides me for ascribing this view to him - O.W.] Presumably, one who holds this view sees Vernor's original purchase as akin to someone purchasing stolen goods. With stolen goods, the law (and hopefully our moral compass) recognizes that the purchaser of the stolen goods has no legal right to them.
Autodesk offered the original owner a discounted price for a newer version of AutoCAD in exchange for a promise to destroy the older version. The original owner reneged on its promise to destroy the old version, and sold it to an unwitting buyer instead.
It follows that both Autodesk and Tim Vernor were treated unfairly by the company that sold the AutoCAD software to Vernor. Despite the company's history of using pirated software, Autodesk gave them the benefit of the doubt when selling them a discounted upgrade. Vernor, by all accounts, had no idea and no way of knowing that the software he purchased had been previously upgraded. This is a recipe for disaster.
Unfortunately, this sort of disaster is all too common. In many cases, software users simply don't read license agreements. If they do read license agreements, they don't understand them. After all, most of us are not lawyers, and we can't reasonably be expected to hire a lawyer to evaluate the license agreements of every software product we use. How then can we be expected to follow them exactly and without fail?
Consider that it's entirely possible that the company from which Vernor bought his AutoCAD software had no idea that they had agreed to destroy the upgraded AutoCAD software. At least from a moral perspective, we can have some sympathy for the company if they honestly had no idea they were violating any agreements when they sold the software to Vernor.
Could Autodesk have required the upgraded AutoCAD software to be returned, or required certification by an independent "software recycler" that it had been destroyed? Sure they could have. In fact, such requirements did exist in the early days of software license agreements. Had Autodesk done so, the Vernor court would probably have concluded that AutoCAD was licensed, not sold.
Why even require the old version to be destroyed when upgrading? If we stop using the old version, why shouldn't we be allowed to sell it at market value? Doesn't recycling old software make just as much sense as recycling old tires? We have been conditioned to believe that discounted upgrades are good for us, but are they really?
Would we accept a legal regime under which tire manufacturers could force us to destroy our old tires as part of the new tire purchase agreement? Oh, you say, that comparison isn't valid because tires eventually wear out of their own accord, whereas old software continues working forever! First of all, old software doesn't continue working forever. How many people still use VisiCalc? Furthermore, what would this line of reasoning conclude about potential tires of the future that last forever? We'd have to start licensing tires instead of purchasing them!
What would happen if software vendors could not legally prevent "used" software from being resold on the open market, no matter how it was purchased or upgraded? For one, it would increase competition, because new versions of software would be competing not only against software from other vendors, but also against older versions of itself. In a world where software is priced based on what the market will bear, the net effect would be lower prices and higher quality (not to mention less frequent "upgrades") for all software.
I think the Vernor case is just one example illustrating how the current software licensing system has sprung a leak, and is in need of repair. Can it be patched, or does it need to be replaced? Can the bleeding be stopped at the ankle, or should it be stopped it at the neck? This is a classical case of the Petcock Problem.
Software industry advocates like the Business Software Alliance (BSA) proclaim that the solution is educating consumers. Education may be important, but I think that "educating consumers" should not be left to an industry alliance.
I have some ideas about how the system can be reformed, but I think we have to start by recognizing that there's a problem.
In the Vernor case, Tim Vernor purchased several boxes of AutoCAD software, and never even read, let alone agreed to, the terms of the license agreement inside the box. When Vernor listed the AutoCAD software for sale on Ebay, Autodesk sent Ebay a notice that claimed Vernor's auction violated Autodesk's copyright. In order to benefit from the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Ebay was obligated to remove the auctions. Vernor responded by filing a lawsuit accusing Autodesk of making false copyright violation claims.
Additional facts have since come to light. For one, we've learned that the AutoCAD software that Vernor purchased had been previously upgraded to a newer version. Vernor did not know this when he purchased the software; and in any case, it's not clear that this fact has any bearing on the outcome of the suit.
Given this set of facts, let's analyze the Vernor case not from a purely legal perspective, but from a more abstract "moral" perspective. After all, society is the ultimate arbitrator of what is wrong and what is right with respect to our laws. We ultimately determine whether laws are fair by whether we follow them willingly (and whether we put pressure on our legislatures to change them).
Steve Johnson opines that Autodesk is morally right in the Vernor case, because the software Vernor purchased was "tainted" due to having been upgraded by the original owner.
Autodesk offered the original owner a discounted price for a newer version of AutoCAD in exchange for a promise to destroy the older version. The original owner reneged on its promise to destroy the old version, and sold it to an unwitting buyer instead.
It follows that both Autodesk and Tim Vernor were treated unfairly by the company that sold the AutoCAD software to Vernor. Despite the company's history of using pirated software, Autodesk gave them the benefit of the doubt when selling them a discounted upgrade. Vernor, by all accounts, had no idea and no way of knowing that the software he purchased had been previously upgraded. This is a recipe for disaster.
Unfortunately, this sort of disaster is all too common. In many cases, software users simply don't read license agreements. If they do read license agreements, they don't understand them. After all, most of us are not lawyers, and we can't reasonably be expected to hire a lawyer to evaluate the license agreements of every software product we use. How then can we be expected to follow them exactly and without fail?
Consider that it's entirely possible that the company from which Vernor bought his AutoCAD software had no idea that they had agreed to destroy the upgraded AutoCAD software. At least from a moral perspective, we can have some sympathy for the company if they honestly had no idea they were violating any agreements when they sold the software to Vernor.
Could Autodesk have required the upgraded AutoCAD software to be returned, or required certification by an independent "software recycler" that it had been destroyed? Sure they could have. In fact, such requirements did exist in the early days of software license agreements. Had Autodesk done so, the Vernor court would probably have concluded that AutoCAD was licensed, not sold.
Why even require the old version to be destroyed when upgrading? If we stop using the old version, why shouldn't we be allowed to sell it at market value? Doesn't recycling old software make just as much sense as recycling old tires? We have been conditioned to believe that discounted upgrades are good for us, but are they really?
Would we accept a legal regime under which tire manufacturers could force us to destroy our old tires as part of the new tire purchase agreement? Oh, you say, that comparison isn't valid because tires eventually wear out of their own accord, whereas old software continues working forever! First of all, old software doesn't continue working forever. How many people still use VisiCalc? Furthermore, what would this line of reasoning conclude about potential tires of the future that last forever? We'd have to start licensing tires instead of purchasing them!
What would happen if software vendors could not legally prevent "used" software from being resold on the open market, no matter how it was purchased or upgraded? For one, it would increase competition, because new versions of software would be competing not only against software from other vendors, but also against older versions of itself. In a world where software is priced based on what the market will bear, the net effect would be lower prices and higher quality (not to mention less frequent "upgrades") for all software.
I think the Vernor case is just one example illustrating how the current software licensing system has sprung a leak, and is in need of repair. Can it be patched, or does it need to be replaced? Can the bleeding be stopped at the ankle, or should it be stopped it at the neck? This is a classical case of the Petcock Problem.
Software industry advocates like the Business Software Alliance (BSA) proclaim that the solution is educating consumers. Education may be important, but I think that "educating consumers" should not be left to an industry alliance.
I have some ideas about how the system can be reformed, but I think we have to start by recognizing that there's a problem.
I'm a firm supporter of intellectual property rights. I fully support the rights of software publishers to own and profit from their creative work. I make my living as both a consumer of software and a publisher of software, so my views on software licensing reflect what I consider to be a healthy symbiosis between producers and consumers.
Intellectual property laws are (or should be) designed to protect this symbiotic relationship for the public good. The patent system is designed not to protect patent owners from pirates, but to promote inventions and improvements on previous inventions that benefit the public. The fact that patent laws do help to protect patent owners from pirates is merely a side effect of the underlying goal of promoting the public interest. We, the public, grant exclusive rights to patent owners for a specific time in exchange for them making public the details of their invention. Innovative inventors can thus build on a body of previously published inventions rather than starting from scratch. This system of "open source" innovation speeds the evolution of technology, and everybody benefits from it.
Copyright laws must be viewed in the same light. Copyright laws are designed to promote and enhance the public good by encouraging the production and publication of creative works. In exchange for giving copyright owners certain rights for a certain period of time, the public gets to enjoy and build upon a body of creative work. Some argue that the benefit of copyright protection provides a financial incentive to create the works in the first place, and that without such an incentive the works would never be produced at all. While this is undoubtedly true, consider that there are other ways to provide financial incentives (by providing government grants, for example), so I think it's important to view this aspect of copyright protection as a consequence of the goal to promote the public interest, not as a goal in and of itself.
Copyright laws have long recognized a need to prevent copyrights from being abused by providing exceptions to the protection they afford to publishers. The Fair Use doctrine is the most common such exception in US copyright law. The First Sale doctrine (or "exhaustion rule" in some jurisdictions) is another example of a limitation on copyrights. These exceptions and limitations evolved in response to attempts by copyright owners to abuse copyrights in a way that contravened their purpose of promoting the public interest.
Software licenses are a relatively new phenomenon, but they rely on very old law: contract law. It is important to understand that a software license agreement is a contract. The commercial software publisher agrees to give us limited and conditional copy rights and authorizes us to use the software in exchange for a fee. If the license agreement that we agreed to authorizes us to install and use the software on one computer, but we install it on ten computers, then we are violating both contract and copyright law (because we copied the software without permission). If the license agreement that we agreed to forbids us to resell the software to someone else, but we decide not to use the software ourselves and sell it anyway, we are violating only contract law (because we made no unauthorized copies).
There are several contract law issues typically encountered with software license agreements.
First, typical commercial software license agreements suffer from their unilateral nature. The contract is drawn up by the publisher with no negotiation or input from the consumer. Some question whether these are valid contracts in the first place, because they lack the "meeting of the minds" element that some judicial interpretations of contract law require.
Second, software license agreements are not usually consummated until after the sale, when the software is finally installed. We purchase the software, essentially committing to our side of the bargain before we even know the terms of the contract to which we must eventually agree in order to use the software. This is inherently unfair, and there are still many unsettled questions about whether or not such a contract can ever be equitable and enforceable.
If you've been following the Vernor vs. Autodesk lawsuit, you'll know that the US federal district court in that case ruled that AutoCAD software was sold, not licensed, and therefore subject to the First Sale Doctrine. The First Sale Doctrine says, in essence, that a publisher cannot contractually restrict the downstream resale or distribution of a copyrighted work beyond the "first sale". The court, at least in its initial ruling, rejected Autodesk's argument that AutoCAD was licensed, and therefore exempt from the First Sale doctrine. It should be noted that the Vernor lawsuit is far from over, and this first sale decision could well change before the dust settles.
The courts will eventually reach a final decision in the specific case of Vernor vs. Autodesk, but why was this lawsuit even necessary in the first place? It's difficult to envision any outcome in which every injury is rectified. It could even be argued that everybody loses, no matter the outcome. And this is just one case in one jurisdiction.
In the end, the final result of the Vernor case may not have much impact on how software is sold. It ultimately comes down to us, the union of consumers, to decide what kind of system we want. Unfortunately, right now we're doing the software limbo while we wait faithfully for the next service pack. I think that we need more than a service pack. A system restore might be in order.
Intellectual property laws are (or should be) designed to protect this symbiotic relationship for the public good. The patent system is designed not to protect patent owners from pirates, but to promote inventions and improvements on previous inventions that benefit the public. The fact that patent laws do help to protect patent owners from pirates is merely a side effect of the underlying goal of promoting the public interest. We, the public, grant exclusive rights to patent owners for a specific time in exchange for them making public the details of their invention. Innovative inventors can thus build on a body of previously published inventions rather than starting from scratch. This system of "open source" innovation speeds the evolution of technology, and everybody benefits from it.
Copyright laws must be viewed in the same light. Copyright laws are designed to promote and enhance the public good by encouraging the production and publication of creative works. In exchange for giving copyright owners certain rights for a certain period of time, the public gets to enjoy and build upon a body of creative work. Some argue that the benefit of copyright protection provides a financial incentive to create the works in the first place, and that without such an incentive the works would never be produced at all. While this is undoubtedly true, consider that there are other ways to provide financial incentives (by providing government grants, for example), so I think it's important to view this aspect of copyright protection as a consequence of the goal to promote the public interest, not as a goal in and of itself.
Copyright laws have long recognized a need to prevent copyrights from being abused by providing exceptions to the protection they afford to publishers. The Fair Use doctrine is the most common such exception in US copyright law. The First Sale doctrine (or "exhaustion rule" in some jurisdictions) is another example of a limitation on copyrights. These exceptions and limitations evolved in response to attempts by copyright owners to abuse copyrights in a way that contravened their purpose of promoting the public interest.
Software licenses are a relatively new phenomenon, but they rely on very old law: contract law. It is important to understand that a software license agreement is a contract. The commercial software publisher agrees to give us limited and conditional copy rights and authorizes us to use the software in exchange for a fee. If the license agreement that we agreed to authorizes us to install and use the software on one computer, but we install it on ten computers, then we are violating both contract and copyright law (because we copied the software without permission). If the license agreement that we agreed to forbids us to resell the software to someone else, but we decide not to use the software ourselves and sell it anyway, we are violating only contract law (because we made no unauthorized copies).
There are several contract law issues typically encountered with software license agreements.
First, typical commercial software license agreements suffer from their unilateral nature. The contract is drawn up by the publisher with no negotiation or input from the consumer. Some question whether these are valid contracts in the first place, because they lack the "meeting of the minds" element that some judicial interpretations of contract law require.
Second, software license agreements are not usually consummated until after the sale, when the software is finally installed. We purchase the software, essentially committing to our side of the bargain before we even know the terms of the contract to which we must eventually agree in order to use the software. This is inherently unfair, and there are still many unsettled questions about whether or not such a contract can ever be equitable and enforceable.
If you've been following the Vernor vs. Autodesk lawsuit, you'll know that the US federal district court in that case ruled that AutoCAD software was sold, not licensed, and therefore subject to the First Sale Doctrine. The First Sale Doctrine says, in essence, that a publisher cannot contractually restrict the downstream resale or distribution of a copyrighted work beyond the "first sale". The court, at least in its initial ruling, rejected Autodesk's argument that AutoCAD was licensed, and therefore exempt from the First Sale doctrine. It should be noted that the Vernor lawsuit is far from over, and this first sale decision could well change before the dust settles.
The courts will eventually reach a final decision in the specific case of Vernor vs. Autodesk, but why was this lawsuit even necessary in the first place? It's difficult to envision any outcome in which every injury is rectified. It could even be argued that everybody loses, no matter the outcome. And this is just one case in one jurisdiction.
In the end, the final result of the Vernor case may not have much impact on how software is sold. It ultimately comes down to us, the union of consumers, to decide what kind of system we want. Unfortunately, right now we're doing the software limbo while we wait faithfully for the next service pack. I think that we need more than a service pack. A system restore might be in order.
2009-02-12
From a new features overview of Autodesk Design Review 2010 comes the following snake oil claim:
As I've explained before, digital signatures do not provide data security; they simply authenticate the person that applied the signature. Digital signatures are a welcome feature with many potential uses, but data security is not one of them.
Digital Signatures
To help secure your data, you can now digitally sign DWFx files.
As I've explained before, digital signatures do not provide data security; they simply authenticate the person that applied the signature. Digital signatures are a welcome feature with many potential uses, but data security is not one of them.
Labels: Autodesk, digital signature, DWF, protection, security
2009-01-28
My participation in the Autodesk discussion groups has been severely curtailed since the notorious "upgrade" a few months ago. One of the many problems introduced by the upgrade is the loss of formatting. It's now virtually impossible to post messages that include inline AutoLISP or ObjectARX code without them being reformatted into unreadable garbage. Even attaching the code as a file is difficult (the "solution" is to rename files with a .txt extension!) As a result, many queries for programming help go unanswered. Autodesk has made an attempt to provide a fix, but a survey of the posts in any of the programming groups shows that it's not working*.
* [Thread has been removed by Autodesk, so link was changed to point to archived thread.]
The recently announced layoffs and related cost cutting measures at Autodesk have dimmed my hopes for a resolution. Therefore, I've decided to offer my services to fix the problem. Autodesk, I'm offering to donate my time to fix your discussion group software. Just give me access to a development and testing platform, and the right to modify or rewrite the code.
Readers, can I get an "Amen"?
Newsgroup%20needs%20complete%20overhaul.htm
* [Thread has been removed by Autodesk, so link was changed to point to archived thread.]
The recently announced layoffs and related cost cutting measures at Autodesk have dimmed my hopes for a resolution. Therefore, I've decided to offer my services to fix the problem. Autodesk, I'm offering to donate my time to fix your discussion group software. Just give me access to a development and testing platform, and the right to modify or rewrite the code.
Readers, can I get an "Amen"?
Newsgroup%20needs%20complete%20overhaul.htm
Labels: Autodesk, discussion groups, programming
2008-10-15
Did you ever wonder what press release writers do in their spare time? Given Autodesk's recent trademark litigation with SolidWorks and related efforts by Autodesk to trademark "DWG", and given the fact that US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) trademark examiners are known to use Wikipedia during their research, it doesn't take an evil genius to realize that a little subversive editing here and there might be helpful to the corporate cause. So, I decided to use Wikiscanner to go spelunking through the labyrinth of Wikipedia editing history to see if I could unearth any nuggets.
It didn't take long to find some interesting edits. For example, in the edit history for "SolidWorks" you can see that someone from an Autodesk IP address changed "and has since been copied by others like [[Autodesk Inventor]]" to "and is now part of the midrange CAD market along with [[Autodesk Inventor]]". Eventually this changes to "and is currently a leader in the 'midrange' CAD market", and from that to "It is currently one of the most popular products in the 3D mechanical CAD market" with a citation to a SolidWorks web page as evidence of the claim.
I expected to find plenty of quid pro quo, but I have to say, either SolidWorks' press release writers are a lot sneakier than Autodesk's, or they have a lot less free time. According to this list of edits from SolidWorks IP addresses, there haven't been any edits made to Autodesk entries since about March of 2007. In October of 2006 someone from SolidWorks changed a few things in the entry for "Autodesk Inventor", but then things appear to have cooled off considerably.
So what about "DWG"? The entry for "AutoCAD DWG" contains this edit from an Autodesk IP address made in January of 2007, but not much since. Two months later, someone from Autodesk changed "for that reason they constituted a consortium ([[OpenDWG]]) to develop open tools to access DWG data" to "for that reason they constituted a consortium ([[OpenDWG]]) to reverse engineer Autodesk's technology and access DWG data". Since then, things have been fairly quiet on the "DWG" front.
My conclusion is that blog posts like this one from Franco Folini at NOVEDGE Blog may have resulted in more strict internal controls being instituted over the editing of Wikipedia content. I have no doubt that it still goes on, but covertly enough to provide plausible deniability.
Labels: Autodesk, file formats, legal, ODA, SolidWorks
2008-09-27
Of course I'm talking about Autodesk's newly reinvented nomenclature for bug fixes. Once upon a time they were known as bug fixes, then service packs, and now "updates". Is the Autodesk marketing department running amok? The subtle spin is certainly a sign of the times, but I wonder if the change in terminology comes about for another reason as well.
Autodesk promises "features extensions" to subscription customers. They have had difficulty delivering such extensions on a consistent basis. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that developers of extensions encounter the same brick walls that third party developers battle all the time: AutoCAD bugs, of course; but also incomplete APIs and feature limitations. It's possible that updates not only fix bugs, but also fill gaps so that extension developers can get their extensions working.
Then again, the change in terminology might be part of a new fad. My wife, who is an engineer working in the automotive industry, informs me that they no longer issue drawing revisions in her company. Instead, they now issue "updates". I wonder how long it will be before auto mechanics stop repairing cars and start updating them instead.
Autodesk promises "features extensions" to subscription customers. They have had difficulty delivering such extensions on a consistent basis. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that developers of extensions encounter the same brick walls that third party developers battle all the time: AutoCAD bugs, of course; but also incomplete APIs and feature limitations. It's possible that updates not only fix bugs, but also fill gaps so that extension developers can get their extensions working.
Then again, the change in terminology might be part of a new fad. My wife, who is an engineer working in the automotive industry, informs me that they no longer issue drawing revisions in her company. Instead, they now issue "updates". I wonder how long it will be before auto mechanics stop repairing cars and start updating them instead.
2008-07-29
InfoWorld columnist and legendary consumer advocate Ed Foster died over the weekend. Ed was a tireless crusader for consumer rights in the digital age, and he will certainly be missed. For many years Ed has authored GripeLine, where he called companies and politicians to task for abusive anti-consumer practices.
I've written before about how Ed exposed and publicised shamefully lopsided software license agreements, including Autodesk's and Adobe's. Recently, Ed commented about the May, 2008 Vernor decision (see my ADSK v ODA web site for more information about the Vernor case).
It will be no easy task to fill Ed's shoes. We can be certain, though, that his work must go on.
I've written before about how Ed exposed and publicised shamefully lopsided software license agreements, including Autodesk's and Adobe's. Recently, Ed commented about the May, 2008 Vernor decision (see my ADSK v ODA web site for more information about the Vernor case).
It will be no easy task to fill Ed's shoes. We can be certain, though, that his work must go on.
Labels: Autodesk, CAD Industry, legal
2008-05-22
From the NewsFeed on my ADSK v ODA web site:
"The court today issued an order denying Autodesk's motion to dismiss the charges in the Vernor lawsuit. Normally such a denial is perfunctory and mundane, but in this ruling the court performs a breathtaking analysis of whether the AutoCAD software was a sale or a license, and reaches conclusions that, if not reversed, are certain to change the face of software sales in the USA. Technically, the scope of this order is limited to simply refusing to grant Autodesk's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the implications of the judge's analysis are almost stunning in their rejection of Autodesk's legal claims. I'm sure you will be hearing much more about this order in the coming weeks, as the entire software industry will certainly take notice of this case."
Labels: Autodesk, CAD Industry, legal
2008-04-30
Steve Johnson asks "where have all the developers gone?", and Deelip Menezes wonders in a comment whether Autodesk's annual release cycle for AutoCAD is part of the problem. I've always said that an annual release cycle is untenable. The annual release cycle is motivated by Autodesk's desire to make the subscription program look attractive. Has it worked?
Based on what I've read and heard through the grapevine, it has definitely worked. More customers than ever are choosing the subscription model. In many cases, the annual subscription business model actually works well for software like AutoCAD, providing benefits for both Autodesk and their customers. But subscription is not for everyone.
In typical greedy big corporate fashion, Autodesk have overplayed their hand. Instead of concentrating on those customers for whom subscription makes sense and leaving the others to choose a different model, the "more is always better" marketing machine kicked in. Ergo, the annual release cycle carrot and the AutoCAD retirement program stick were invented. [Oh sorry, it's called the Autodesk Loyalty Program.]
I am already seeing the beginnings of a movement of discontent among Autodesk customers, and I expect the annual release cycle to collapse under its own weight within another year or two. In the meantime, tremendous damage is being done. Customers, third party developers, authors, and consultants all suffer under the strain of the annual release cycle, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.
To pull off annual releases, Autodesk have to be working on multiple versions of AutoCAD in parallel. While AutoCAD 2006 was being beta tested, AutoCAD 2007 and 2008 were already under development, and AutoCAD 2009 was already in the planning stages. When CUI was first introduced to the public, the new ribbon UI was likely already in the planning stages. Is it any wonder that the angry feedback about CUI was ignored?
When you have an annual release cycle with 3 or 4 future releases on parallel tracks, you can't just stop and fix a fundamental design flaw. All you can do is increase your public relations budget. The harm done to third party developers is substantial, but the inability to shift gears and correct fundamental design flaws is the real travesty of the annual release cycle.
Based on what I've read and heard through the grapevine, it has definitely worked. More customers than ever are choosing the subscription model. In many cases, the annual subscription business model actually works well for software like AutoCAD, providing benefits for both Autodesk and their customers. But subscription is not for everyone.
In typical greedy big corporate fashion, Autodesk have overplayed their hand. Instead of concentrating on those customers for whom subscription makes sense and leaving the others to choose a different model, the "more is always better" marketing machine kicked in. Ergo, the annual release cycle carrot and the AutoCAD retirement program stick were invented. [Oh sorry, it's called the Autodesk Loyalty Program.]
I am already seeing the beginnings of a movement of discontent among Autodesk customers, and I expect the annual release cycle to collapse under its own weight within another year or two. In the meantime, tremendous damage is being done. Customers, third party developers, authors, and consultants all suffer under the strain of the annual release cycle, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.
To pull off annual releases, Autodesk have to be working on multiple versions of AutoCAD in parallel. While AutoCAD 2006 was being beta tested, AutoCAD 2007 and 2008 were already under development, and AutoCAD 2009 was already in the planning stages. When CUI was first introduced to the public, the new ribbon UI was likely already in the planning stages. Is it any wonder that the angry feedback about CUI was ignored?
When you have an annual release cycle with 3 or 4 future releases on parallel tracks, you can't just stop and fix a fundamental design flaw. All you can do is increase your public relations budget. The harm done to third party developers is substantial, but the inability to shift gears and correct fundamental design flaws is the real travesty of the annual release cycle.
2007-09-06
I've noticed more frequent posts in the Autodesk discussion groups about slow startup problems since AutoCAD 2008 was released, and I have the same problem on my development system. Part of the problem is .NET loading, due to the new .NET gadgets like the dashboard palette. Another long running startup hassle is the communication center (WSCommCntr1.exe if you check running processes in task manager) that Autodesk products use to call home.
In addition to the time the communication center process takes to start up, it can also get "stuck" (either due to network or connection problems, or because of AutoCAD crashing) and cause interminable startup delays. If AutoCAD is trying to start while the communication center is "stuck", it will wait in a completely frozen state for about 2 minutes before it times out and loading continues.
In addition, AutoCAD 2008 service pack 1 introduced a new "pure virtual function call" C runtime error that shows up when the communication center closes after an AutoCAD crash.
All these problems can be easily fixed by disabling the AutoCAD InfoCenter, which is the culprit that loads the communication center background process. I disabled it by changing the demand load registry key for the InfoCenter. That key can be found in the registry at:
Change the LOADCTRLS value to 0 (zero) to disable it from demand loading.
If you disable your InfoCenter from demand loading, you can still load it manually by using the NETLOAD command to load AcInfoCenterConn.dll from the AutoCAD 2008 folder.
In addition to the time the communication center process takes to start up, it can also get "stuck" (either due to network or connection problems, or because of AutoCAD crashing) and cause interminable startup delays. If AutoCAD is trying to start while the communication center is "stuck", it will wait in a completely frozen state for about 2 minutes before it times out and loading continues.
In addition, AutoCAD 2008 service pack 1 introduced a new "pure virtual function call" C runtime error that shows up when the communication center closes after an AutoCAD crash.
All these problems can be easily fixed by disabling the AutoCAD InfoCenter, which is the culprit that loads the communication center background process. I disabled it by changing the demand load registry key for the InfoCenter. That key can be found in the registry at:
HKLM\Software\Autodesk\R17.1\[ACAD-XXXX:XXX]\Applications\InfoCenterAcConn
Change the LOADCTRLS value to 0 (zero) to disable it from demand loading.
If you disable your InfoCenter from demand loading, you can still load it manually by using the NETLOAD command to load AcInfoCenterConn.dll from the AutoCAD 2008 folder.
2007-08-17
I've heard the word "brutal" used more than once during conversations with Autodesk employees about the Autodesk sponsored discussion groups. It's true that raw unfiltered feedback can be brutal, and it can also hurt your ego if you happen to be the target of criticism. The trick is to learn how to interpret the feedback. If you can master that skill, that raw feedback is a fast, unbiased, low noise-to-signal-ratio predictor of the future.
I've seen many recognizable Autodesk names come and go since the days of Autodesk's original online discussion group, the CompuServe ACAD forum. Oftentimes, they came espousing the virtues of such a vibrant community, only to wilt away after they got singed a few times in the inevitable flame wars. Some Autodesk names (Art Cooney comes to mind) have been around forever, and still take it all in stride. Personally, I view the discussion groups as one of Autodesk's biggest competitive advantages, even while they go largely untapped.
This week saw too issues erupt into what could fairly be termed brutal feedback. The first was caused by the Autodesk University registration site failing under the load of opening day registration. Several threads ("Dear Carl Bass" and "AU2007 Registration is now open!!!") called Autodesk to the carpet for blowing it again, after a similar fiasco in 2006.
The second event occurred when AutoCAD product manager Eric Stover announced a new "bonus" tool called CommandComplete. I pity the poor guy or gal that wrote this tool (on their own time, I'm sure), all excited to see how it is received, only to become the victim of a flame war. Okay, not really a flame war in this case because Eric employed his finely tuned flame retardant diplomacy skills to prevent it from getting out of hand -- so let's just call it a "venomous reaction".
There is a moral to this story. Some companies would kill to have access to this kind of critical, unfiltered, instantaneous feedback from the unwashed masses. I hope Autodesk recognizes the goose that lays the golden egg.
I've seen many recognizable Autodesk names come and go since the days of Autodesk's original online discussion group, the CompuServe ACAD forum. Oftentimes, they came espousing the virtues of such a vibrant community, only to wilt away after they got singed a few times in the inevitable flame wars. Some Autodesk names (Art Cooney comes to mind) have been around forever, and still take it all in stride. Personally, I view the discussion groups as one of Autodesk's biggest competitive advantages, even while they go largely untapped.
This week saw too issues erupt into what could fairly be termed brutal feedback. The first was caused by the Autodesk University registration site failing under the load of opening day registration. Several threads ("Dear Carl Bass" and "AU2007 Registration is now open!!!") called Autodesk to the carpet for blowing it again, after a similar fiasco in 2006.
The second event occurred when AutoCAD product manager Eric Stover announced a new "bonus" tool called CommandComplete. I pity the poor guy or gal that wrote this tool (on their own time, I'm sure), all excited to see how it is received, only to become the victim of a flame war. Okay, not really a flame war in this case because Eric employed his finely tuned flame retardant diplomacy skills to prevent it from getting out of hand -- so let's just call it a "venomous reaction".
There is a moral to this story. Some companies would kill to have access to this kind of critical, unfiltered, instantaneous feedback from the unwashed masses. I hope Autodesk recognizes the goose that lays the golden egg.
Labels: Autodesk, CAD Industry, discussion groups
2007-01-08
I'm one of those throwbacks that learned HTML by typing it in Notepad. I've since moved up to using the Visual Studio editor; it does syntax coloring, error highlighting, and has a "design" mode for previewing the page, yet it's a very utilitarian editor that I feel comfortable with. I do use FrontPage when I need to manage connections between multiple HTML pages, but mostly in raw HTML mode. When I use WYSIWYG design mode in FrontPage, I inevitably end up cleaning out a lot of unnecessary junk that it includes in the generated HTML. I think it's fair to say that my obsession with clean HTML results in utilitarian, functional, and standards conformant presentations -- but with a decided lack of graphic appeal.
The ManuSoft and CADLock web sites are examples of this utilitarian approach. The ManuSoft site uses no fancy graphics and relies very little on client side scripting, and it supports a hierarchical navigation system using only standard hyperlinks. I like that minimalist approach, but the price for clean HTML being served to clients is a lot of work on the server to maintain the site. As a result, I don't update the site very often because it's just too difficult.
This blog was the first step toward realizing a goal of making it easier to add new content. After all, the raison d'être of blogs is to minimize the latency between the writer's stream of consciousness and words on the web by making it irresistibly easy to add new content. This is precisely why blogs have become so popular.
Unfortunately, I soon found limitations with my blog. Tabular lists of data still require manual HTML input, it is difficult to customize the content area outside the individual posts on the blog page, and most aspects of the hosted blog software are outside my control. I wanted more.
The Autodesk vs. Open Design Alliance lawsuit gave me an excuse to take the next step: implement the "blog" concept across an entire web site with software that I control. So, I decided to swallow my pride and learn how to create an entire web site that would be so easy to update that I would actually update it frequently -- even if it meant messy HTML code. Stay tuned for Part II, choosing a hosting service and deciding which software to use.
The ManuSoft and CADLock web sites are examples of this utilitarian approach. The ManuSoft site uses no fancy graphics and relies very little on client side scripting, and it supports a hierarchical navigation system using only standard hyperlinks. I like that minimalist approach, but the price for clean HTML being served to clients is a lot of work on the server to maintain the site. As a result, I don't update the site very often because it's just too difficult.
This blog was the first step toward realizing a goal of making it easier to add new content. After all, the raison d'être of blogs is to minimize the latency between the writer's stream of consciousness and words on the web by making it irresistibly easy to add new content. This is precisely why blogs have become so popular.
Unfortunately, I soon found limitations with my blog. Tabular lists of data still require manual HTML input, it is difficult to customize the content area outside the individual posts on the blog page, and most aspects of the hosted blog software are outside my control. I wanted more.
The Autodesk vs. Open Design Alliance lawsuit gave me an excuse to take the next step: implement the "blog" concept across an entire web site with software that I control. So, I decided to swallow my pride and learn how to create an entire web site that would be so easy to update that I would actually update it frequently -- even if it meant messy HTML code. Stay tuned for Part II, choosing a hosting service and deciding which software to use.
Labels: Autodesk, CMS, ODA, programming, Visual Studio
2007-01-06
Did you know that Autodesk is offering a promotional upgrade price to AutoCAD LT users until January 19th? Check out http://www.adskhost.net/43404/solution.php. According to that web page, you can upgrade an AutoCAD LT 2004/2005/2006 license to any one of several AutoCAD 2007 based software offerings from AutoCAD 2007 to Inventor Series -- for $1995. If you have an LT license, now might be a good time to upgrade it.
Labels: AutoCAD, AutoCAD LT, Autodesk
2006-12-12
The recently filed lawsuit has been a hot topic lately, and I've been following it along with everyone else. As a little side project, I decided to create a parallel blog dedicated to the ongoing battle between Autodesk and ODA. The new blog is at http://www.ADSKvODA.com.
The site is still a work in progress, but I hope you'll check it out, and offer suggestions for improvements. Click on the Lawsuit Tracker link to view all the court documents in the case, and subscribe to the site's feed to stay informed of new developments.
The site is still a work in progress, but I hope you'll check it out, and offer suggestions for improvements. Click on the Lawsuit Tracker link to view all the court documents in the case, and subscribe to the site's feed to stay informed of new developments.
2006-12-10
No matter the communication protocol used to transmit it, most information gets packaged into a file format for consumption. File formats are like virtual checkpoints along the information superhighway, and we would do well to pay attention to who is manning the gates.
We've heard a lot of noise lately about the need for "open" file formats, but documenting a file format is not the same thing as relinquishing control of the format. The key consideration is who decides when and how the file format changes. This is a dirty little secret about file formats that you are not supposed to know. By controlling when and how a file format changes, an organization can maintain a mindshare monopoly over consumers of its file format -- even when the format is "open".
It may be that the relative anarchy of the internet has given us a false sense of security. We happily use "open" formats like PDF, DWF, DXF, HTM, and others with relatively little concern about who controls them, but all of those formats (HTM perhaps to a lesser degree) are controlled by corporations whose allegiance is first and foremost to their shareholders. For example, PDF is "open", but did you know that third party developers need a digital ID signed by Adobe in order to create forms-enabled PDF files that can be opened in the free Acrobat Reader?
In April of 2006, Autodesk filed a trademark application for the word "DWG" when used to refer to DWG files. This may seem benign on the surface, but if successful it will give Autodesk more legal leverage in "defending" the file format. A few weeks ago, Autodesk filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Open Design Alliance claiming that the ODA infringed their "AUTODESK" trademark by embedding the mark inside DWG files created with its DWGdirect libraries.
Much has been written by the pundits about the pros and cons of the ODA lawsuit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation predictably suggests that Autodesk is using trademark claims to stymie interoperability, but the bottom line is that the contention centers around a file format -- a file format that Autodesk considers valuable enough to wage war over.
We've heard a lot of noise lately about the need for "open" file formats, but documenting a file format is not the same thing as relinquishing control of the format. The key consideration is who decides when and how the file format changes. This is a dirty little secret about file formats that you are not supposed to know. By controlling when and how a file format changes, an organization can maintain a mindshare monopoly over consumers of its file format -- even when the format is "open".
It may be that the relative anarchy of the internet has given us a false sense of security. We happily use "open" formats like PDF, DWF, DXF, HTM, and others with relatively little concern about who controls them, but all of those formats (HTM perhaps to a lesser degree) are controlled by corporations whose allegiance is first and foremost to their shareholders. For example, PDF is "open", but did you know that third party developers need a digital ID signed by Adobe in order to create forms-enabled PDF files that can be opened in the free Acrobat Reader?
In April of 2006, Autodesk filed a trademark application for the word "DWG" when used to refer to DWG files. This may seem benign on the surface, but if successful it will give Autodesk more legal leverage in "defending" the file format. A few weeks ago, Autodesk filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Open Design Alliance claiming that the ODA infringed their "AUTODESK" trademark by embedding the mark inside DWG files created with its DWGdirect libraries.
Much has been written by the pundits about the pros and cons of the ODA lawsuit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation predictably suggests that Autodesk is using trademark claims to stymie interoperability, but the bottom line is that the contention centers around a file format -- a file format that Autodesk considers valuable enough to wage war over.
Labels: Adobe, Autodesk, EFF, file formats, ODA
2006-12-05
Not according to the press release. Vista (and .NET 3.0) includes a built-in XPS Viewer (also available for Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003), which will view any XPS format file. Apparently Autodesk plans to add support for output to XPS format in the future, and this output will be called DWFx -- a new file format. It's not clear what the difference will be between DWFx and the output produced using the Microsoft XPS Document Writer that is already available.
I installed the Microsoft XPS Document Writer and XPS Viewer on my Windows XP SP2 machine. Next, I started AutoCAD 2007 and opened "3D House.dwg" from the Sample folder. I then plotted this file to DWF, PDF, and XPS, with the following results:
I'm not suggesting that these files all contain the same content, I'm merely suggesting that DWFx/XPS may have some undesirable tradeoffs in practice.
This whole issue about "native Vista support for DWF" may be nothing but smoke and mirrors. There is no guarantee that publishing CAD data in the XPS format will be efficient. So what will happen if users can choose between a compact DWF, a slightly less compact but ubiquitous PDF, or a very space-hungry DWFx? Time will tell, but I think this issue of DWF in Vista is getting way to much spin and not enough critical analysis.
I installed the Microsoft XPS Document Writer and XPS Viewer on my Windows XP SP2 machine. Next, I started AutoCAD 2007 and opened "3D House.dwg" from the Sample folder. I then plotted this file to DWF, PDF, and XPS, with the following results:
| Plotter | Plot Time | File Size |
|---|---|---|
| DWF6 ePlot.pc3 | 7 seconds | 139 kb |
| DWG To PDF.pc3 | 5 seconds | 165 kb |
| Microsoft XPS Document Writer | 34 seconds | 829 kb |
I'm not suggesting that these files all contain the same content, I'm merely suggesting that DWFx/XPS may have some undesirable tradeoffs in practice.
This whole issue about "native Vista support for DWF" may be nothing but smoke and mirrors. There is no guarantee that publishing CAD data in the XPS format will be efficient. So what will happen if users can choose between a compact DWF, a slightly less compact but ubiquitous PDF, or a very space-hungry DWFx? Time will tell, but I think this issue of DWF in Vista is getting way to much spin and not enough critical analysis.
Labels: Autodesk, DWF, file formats, Microsoft, Vista
About Me
- Name: Owen Wengerd
- Location: Apple Creek, Ohio, United States
I'm a starving artist specializing in the programming genre. I work in my home office, where I am the owner and sole proprietor of ManuSoft as well as the President and chief software artist of CADLock, Inc.
Syndication
Archive
December 2006January 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
August 2007
September 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
March 2010
Recent Comments
:Actually, bus lines and truckers lease their tires (and give them back to upgrade when needed).
@ March 2, 2009 12:46:00 PM EST
antman:I think the bleeding needs to be stopped at the neck.
Beyond the facts of this case, we could pretend that the original company sold their upgraded copy of AutoCAD to Vernor, and destroyed and uninstalled all copies in their possession. In this scenario, the EULA *still* would have been violated.
Last year I was eventually able to successfully "transfer my license" of AutoCAD (notice I didn't say "sell"), but only after navigating a large number of hurdles, the biggest of which was closing my business. I had put my own work on hold to become a full-time employee, but that wasn't enough for Autodesk.
Especially given the current market, there are quite a few shops that now have a surplus of licenses. These businesses not only have these "assets" that have no monetary value, but are also being penalized by having to continue paying subscription fees for a software license that is not even being used.
@ March 2, 2009 4:32:00 PM EST
:Owen, I think the point about education is important and in my opinion the BSA (the BSAA for we Ausies) does not educate but pushes a point of view that is not supported by the facts.
As you know Autodesk and I have been arguing about their Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditins for over four (4) years and the only reason we have the solution we have is because I have made a unilateral declaration.
The outcome could have been much better for both of us had Autodesk not chosen to refuse to negotiate.
That's the simple key to solving the entire issue!
No reforms are actually required if that one simple step is followed.
@ March 2, 2009 5:39:00 PM EST
:Software vendors have been using the 'software is licensed, not sold' argument as a foundation for consumer fraud.
No other industry that is subject to competition is able to sell grossly-defective products to consumers, without forcing them to enter into an agreement in which the 'licensee' must agree to accept the software with all defects, both known or unknown, and with no assurance the software vendor has revealed everything it knows about defects.
The fact is that our current laws provide the means for software vendors to engage in what amonts to a high-tech shell game with consumers, and get away with it.
If one has their doubts about that, consider the fact that one of every three dollars spent on IT is lost, primarly as a result of defective software.
Also consider how much money the BSA and other industry consortiums spend lobbying our legislators to protect their interests, giving themselves the means to engage in what is for all intents and purposes, consumer fraud.
@ March 2, 2009 7:26:00 PM EST
Steve Johnson:"In Steve's view, Vernor's original purchase is akin to someone purchasing stolen goods."
Can you point out where I've made such a statement? I have been careful to avoid any accusations of theft, receiving stolen goods or other illegal activity, or any implications that Vernor's actions are akin to such activity.
I have made the statement that I think Vernor's actions are morally wrong, and I stand by that. I have never accused him of being a fence, or anything akin to it.
Please be more careful when paraphrasing the views of others.
@ March 6, 2009 8:09:00 PM EST
Owen Wengerd:Steve, I've changed the wording to more accurately reflect what I intended to convey. Do I understand correctly that you deny claiming any justification for your conclusion? Or only the one I ascribed to you?
@ March 6, 2009 9:42:00 PM EST
Steve Johnson:Thanks for changing the wording. It's great being part of a company like CADLock where it's OK to chide your boss in public. I can't imagine any Autodesk blogger chiding Carl Bass, can you?
No, I don't deny claiming any justification for my conclusion. I just deny claiming that Vernor is akin to a crook!
My main justifications for considering Vernor's actions morally wrong are:
1. He sold something that I believe the average fair-minded person in the street would say he has no right to sell: the remnants of software that has been upgraded.
2. He sold something that it is quite likely the buyer would believe to be considered by Autodesk a legitimate piece of software. In other words, it's probable that the buyer, on learning that the software he bought is considered non-existent by Autodesk, will think he has been ripped off.
3. It seems that Vernor took a "don't ask, don't tell" position about the legitimacy of the software. I think a buyer/seller of software has a duty to carefully check its legitimacy.
My last point against Vernor is, ironically, damaged by Autodesk's removal of the ability to transfer licenses, and the accompanying non-availability of an Autodesk mechanism to check that the software is kosher. However, any one of these three points is enough for me to still feel comfortable with my opinion that Vernor selling this upgraded software is morally wrong.
I intend to express my views on this subject at more length when you've finished your series of posts and I've had chance to give them some careful thought. I'm hoping to see a description of how you would expect this brave new world to operate.
@ March 9, 2009 1:20:00 AM EDT
Owen Wengerd:Regarding Autodeskers chiding Carl Bass in public: very true, but then again I can't exactly fire you on a whim like I imagine Carl could his antagonist.
Fair enough on your justification. I think I view the situation pretty much the same way you do, except with more shades of gray and less black and white.
In my post I intended to distill this viewpoint down into something easier to grasp, like "akin to stolen goods", which I don't see as much different at all.
My main point of contention with your reasoning is that you apply "caveat emptor" to Vernor, but not to his customer. This may have been a reasonable expectation before the Ebay era, but things have changed.
My next post on the topic of software licensing will be about where we go from here, but don't hold your breath.
@ March 9, 2009 2:22:00 AM EDT
Steve Johnson:There's no inconsistency in my attitude towards Vernor and his customer. If his customer sold the software to somebody else, I would consider that to be morally wrong, too.
The caveat emptor principle applies to both buying parties, but it's the selling that concerns me much more than the buying.
If you buy something that's effectively worthless (e.g. a printer for which ink is no longer available), that's just harm you've inflicted on yourself through lack of care. It is its own punishment, if you like.
The same doesn't apply to the seller. If you sell that same thing to some other sucker, you're not punishing yourself, you're inflicting harm on somebody else. Even if it's through carelessness rather than vindictiveness or greed, it's still wrong, in my view.
@ March 9, 2009 8:26:00 AM EDT
:Owen and Steve,
I have watched you two guys discuss this issues with some interest; Vernon's personal 'morality' aside, if you are looking for a 'solution' to licencing how about you look at what I have done and promote that as a way forward.
There are easily recognized solutions embodied in what I have done requiring no changes to laws, addition of new laws and or court cases; just professional behaviour by both vendor(s) and customer(s) excersized within the laws already in existance.
All that is required is for software users to understand what I have done then do the professional thing and exercise the rights already enshrined and awaiting their use.
Software licencing is a bluff: Vendors are prepared to put (your) money behind their abuse of terms and conditions; but cannot sustain the bluff if their customers were not so lazy and stopped 'sitting on the fence' arguing, not acting!
What actually needs 'reform'? Let's get this debate going; maybe you could start by telling me why ALL/other software users could not, should not or will not simply follow my lead. What I have done is in place and working right now.
@ March 10, 2009 5:53:00 PM EDT
:In the main Owen I would agree completely with what you have said here with one notable exception; you say, "It is important to understand that a software license agreement is a contract."
This may be true in some instances but I believe I have adequately demonstrated Autodesk's Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditions are NOT contracts.
Furthermore it is not in the best interests of Autodesk's customers, or the industry, for them to be recognized as contracts for the simple reason Autodesk have chosen to use their terms and conditions to impose invasive conditions that NO sensible person should accept or society should allow.
But the crux of Autodesk's problem lies in the fact Autodesk and its dealers are totally incapable of negotiating their terms and conditions; this refusal has rendered Autodesk's Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditions VOID.
In my blog Caveat emptor I have demonstrated how this has occurred and published my personal declaration.
If more Autodek customers tackled this issue as I have done reform would occur in a manner more useful and of greater benefit to both vendors and customers alike without the costly involvment of the courts and lawyers.
In the mean time I may be the only person, out of millions, that daily uses Autodesk software whilst being completely free of any obligation to Autodesk!
At least for the moment ;-)
@ March 2, 2009 5:59:00 PM EST
Melanie (Stone) Perry:Amen!
@ January 28, 2009 12:39:00 PM EST
R.K. McSwain:Amen #2
@ January 28, 2009 1:28:00 PM EST
Jimmy Bergmark - JTB World:Autodesk, say yes if possible. But don't they use Jive?
http://www.jivesoftware.com/jivespace/message/138762#138762
@ January 28, 2009 2:48:00 PM EST
Owen Wengerd:Jimmy, they do use Jive. I would assume Autodesk has (or could) negotiate a license to modify Jive's software as needed. Or, scrap it altogether.
@ January 28, 2009 3:05:00 PM EST
Matthew Anderson:Hallelujah!
Amen!
@ January 29, 2009 9:58:00 AM EST
:You're a good man Charlie Brown... I mean Owen... bless you for being good hearted. Let's just hope AutoDesk is listening.
@ January 29, 2009 10:00:00 AM EST
Christopher Fugitt:Amen
@ January 29, 2009 10:41:00 AM EST
:Amen! Well kinda…
It’s been busy over at TheSwamp.Org lately, which is good..
Thanks for all you do Owen
Daniel
@ January 29, 2009 6:24:00 PM EST
:amen !
and Bravo ! Owen
Kerry Brown
@ January 29, 2009 6:41:00 PM EST
Barry:Owen you da man. :)
@ January 29, 2009 7:53:00 PM EST
:Hear! Hear! (or Here! Here!).
... and Amen, too.
@ February 1, 2009 12:22:00 AM EST
Steve Johnson:Can we assume you haven't been taken up on the offer yet? ;)
@ February 24, 2009 12:51:00 AM EST
Owen Wengerd:Yes, Steve, that would be a correct assumption. :/
@ February 24, 2009 2:12:00 AM EST
Steve Johnson:I have something to say about the "it's not working" link to the discussion in the Autodesk Discussion Groups. It's not working!
"Error: you do not have permission to view the requested forum or category."
Strange, it used to work. Moved out of sight, perhaps? If so, that's really not a good idea. Suppressing a discussion in the discussion groups about improving the discussion groups only supports the conspiracy theory that Autodesk actually wants to keep them working badly.
@ February 25, 2009 1:30:00 AM EST
Owen Wengerd:Good catch, Steve. I've verified that the entire thread has been removed from the server. Luckily I still have it archived.
@ February 25, 2009 11:37:00 PM EST
ralphg:I recall an Autodesk executive telling me that Microsoft was envious at how fast the CAD company churned out releases.
@ April 30, 2008 7:17:00 PM EDT
ralphg:Thanks for the tip!
@ September 10, 2007 1:20:00 PM EDT
Scott:This seemed to work for me. How about speeding up the shutdown as well?
@ September 10, 2007 8:50:00 PM EDT
R.K. McSwain:Great tip. Thanks Owen.
@ October 30, 2007 4:01:00 PM EDT
:Thanks a lot!
@ November 19, 2007 2:31:00 AM EST
:Thanks, very helpful. The reg address was a little different for LT, but still works
@ February 26, 2008 4:12:00 AM EST
:Thanks I started getting this error after I upgraded to SP1 worked like a charm.
@ April 14, 2008 7:37:00 PM EDT
:Hi,
Does it work with acad 2008LT.
Its really slow when i change tabs between model and layouts as well as print previews.
Cheers
@ June 20, 2008 6:38:00 AM EDT
:10x, it works for AutoCAD 2009 (17.2).
For completeness of you post - the initial value of LOADCTRLS was 4c (hexadecimal).
@ October 27, 2008 4:19:00 AM EDT
:Not work for me, AutoCAD Civil3D 2009 - Unknown command "LOADCTRLS".
@ January 30, 2009 12:20:00 AM EST
:try "XLOADCTL"
Type: Integer
Saved in: Registry
Initial value: 2
Turns xref demand-loading on and off, and controls whether it opens the referenced drawing or a copy.
0
Turns off demand-loading; the entire drawing is loaded.
1
Turns on demand-loading. Referenced drawings are kept open and locked.
2
Turns on demand-loading. Copies of referenced drawings are opened and locked; referenced drawings are not locked
@ August 5, 2009 2:39:00 PM EDT
Ziren:Thanks, it saves me a lot of troubles.
@ August 27, 2009 2:03:00 PM EDT
:Registry key for my version (AutoCAD LT 2004) is:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD LT\R9\ACLT-201:409\Applications\WSCommCntrAcCon
Disabled it by setting value to 0 as suggested, worked well, thanks.
@ September 10, 2009 6:11:00 AM EDT
:Awesome tip, thank you very much.
@ February 24, 2010 6:54:00 AM EST
:Seek all "InfoCenter" keys with regedit, and disable with "0". Works in Autocad Arquitecture 2010. Thanks.
@ February 25, 2010 7:08:00 AM EST
:Very good post.
@ August 19, 2007 9:19:00 AM EDT
:"..the unwashed masses." I wash every day.
The downside to having a ravenous fan base is you have a ravenous fan base.
@ September 10, 2007 4:56:00 PM EDT
Deelip Menezes:Well, I really do not care who decides to change the version or specification of an "Open" file format, as long as they provide the general public all the information (or preferably libraries) it needs to read and write the concerned files. File formats have to change over a period of time, due to a variety of valid reasons. I would prefer a corporation taking "control" of their "open" format rather than a bunch of individuals who do not all move in a single direction.
@ December 11, 2006 2:37:00 AM EST
Owen Wengerd:Deelip, I agree that corporations tend to be much better than "standards bodies" at maintaining file formats. Philosophically, I'm not against letting the free market act as the counterweight to balance corporate control of file formats -- but I still worry about being taken hostage.
@ December 11, 2006 3:24:00 PM EST
CADxp:Thanks Owen for these precisions. Very interesting indeed... I have now a very different opinion on the DWF in Vista and less in a hurry to advise Vista at work...
@ December 10, 2006 5:18:00 AM EST
Scott:Autodesk is not using the XPS Writer to produce DWFx files. We are merely swapping out the existing 2D format for one that is XPS compliant. We are modifying the DWF Toolkit to do this. We are not going through GDI like the Microsoft XPS Writer.
What will be different from a DWFx file from a vanilla XPS file is that DWFx will also have the other data, e.g. 3D and metadata. This means that an Autodesk viewer user will have a more powerful viewing experience. With the switch to DWFx, at least a Microsft XPS Viewer user can see the 2D data. Today a user has no choice but to use Project Freewheel or download a viewer from Autdoesk. In the future, he will have a third choice - the Microsoft XPS Viewer, which as a Vista user, he will already have installed.
@ December 11, 2006 10:34:00 AM EST
Owen Wengerd:Thanks for the clarification, Scott. It will be interesting to see whether DWFx can achieve parity with DWF 6 as far as file sizes and generation times. The proof will be in the pudding, I guess. :)
@ December 11, 2006 3:12:00 PM EST