Effective immediately, the new release of Ubuntu, 17.10, aka 'Artful Aardvark' has been released!
This release will be supported for 9 months (until 2018) for Long Term Support, stick with release 16.04, instead.
Official flavors (e.g. Kubuntu) are also released.
See the above release notes for a full list of changes and where you can get a copy.
[Full disclosure: the majority of SoylentNews' servers run Ubuntu 16.04 LTS though we have taken steps towards moving to Gentoo.]
The customized version of GNOME that Ubuntu 17.10 uses is very much in the mould of the (now defunct) Unity desktop, so it won't be to everyone's tastes.
Now, see.You started from "Windoze software" and I started from "software".
cross platform graphics support
Games have already been mentioned.Your apps are more graphics-intensive than games??I'm not buying that for 1 second.
Again: This is about sloth and lock-in.Your excusing your lazy, greedy vendors shows how easily you allow yourself to be led around by the nose.
Again: I doubt that you have even broached the subject with your vendors.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
I have asked, and there is no vendor of professional grade five axis CAM who is willing to consider developing for Linux. Not one. Why is this my fault again?
I forgot to address your other points. Yes it is more graphics intensive, just in a different way. It's not worried about fancy visual effects, but representing a model which may be several feet across with a facet every .002" or less is pretty intensive. And all the software that currently exists in the field was written to use the Windows API, with the exception of the older DOS code that they're still using. Unless someone is willing to pony up a few tens of millions to start over from scratch this is what there is.
If you're trying to impress me, you're failing.
Going in a different direction, but on a related theme, I remember DJ Delorie (a developer of the gEDA suite) mentioning how for laughs he had demonstrated that, by tweaking a parameter in the setup file, the software would (assuming that you have enough RAM/virtual memory) lay out a printed circuit board that was 64 feet by 64 feet.
There's nothing special about software for which you have to pay a license fee again every year.
I remember Terry Porter regularly posting a link to photos of his latest FOSS-created PWBs at sci.electronics.design back around the turn of the century.FOSS has been making money for pros for a long long time while preserving their freedom.
There's absolutely nothing special about it, except that there are zero viable alternatives in the real world. If it's so easy, why is the best free CAM only passible for 3 axis hobby use? Why can't it be on par with the software that's had hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it over almost fourty years of continuous development and improvement?
I've pointed to other folks with needs that they filled from within their own ranks.Someone saw a lack of Free(dom) Software for a particular set of tasks and set about filling the void.(In the FOSS world, we call it "scratching an itch".)
At $60k per individual, how many of you in that field would it take to commission a cross-platform FOSS app?
The narrowness of your vision is disappointing.Techies are supposed to be problem solvers and you guys instead just bend over and take it.
...and in my field, as alluded to, several proprietary products have had changes to their licenses.Others have been bought by a competitor and abandoned, crippled, made spyware, and/or increased in price.
Keep your fingers crossed that none of that happens to your single-platform proprietary apps and you then have to start spending buckets of money all over again and learn an entirely new UI.
My business is machining parts, not writing software. You're proposing that instead of buying software that I can use right away, I set aside all of that capital for a decade while someone tries to remake something equivalent? That's horrible business sense. How about this: your car breaks and you need an immediate replacement. Take the money that you could use to buy said replacement, and instead give it to a group of people who may or may not develop a usable replacement in a decade. In the mean time you walk.
No. If Linux wants to replace Windows it will need to run software that was written for Windows. It's this "No, you come to me" attitude that's keeping Linux from succeeding.