>>25539
>>25539
When you do CAD for money, the customer usually has requires that a specific software is used.

For electrical CAD, this might for example be Zuken E3, Promis.e or EPlan. What do you tell a new customer who asks

>Can you do electrical engineering in Promis.e

?

>No, sorry, we use Linux as an operating system, we only do gschem and kicad

And sales will have to find projects where it's OK to use those, which is fine and dandy, as long as the drafters don't insist on getting paid every month. And at this point, we are not even talking about getting part libraries, which for gschem, is spectacularly horrible.

Can you get other stuff than kicad running on Linux with wine etc.? Probably yes, but enjoy telling management

>Our drafters will be unable to work for the next two or three days, because the new version of the electrical CAD-Software does not work on our OS, which the vendor does not support, by the way.

Can you get custom builds? Probably yes, if you can pay for it. Enjoy telling controlling

>With the suggested switch in workstation operating systems, the workstations for our drafters would have ten times the cost p.a. because we need custom built versions of four different electrical CAD systems.

>https://w3.siemens.com/mcms/human-machine-interface/en/customized-products/customized-software/portfolio/pages/softnet-linux.aspx

This is for networking with PLCs, not for programming PLCs. Afaik, there is no TIA-Portal for Linux. It is progress that there is a Linux library from Siemens to talk to S7. Of course, when you integrate a Linux system with industrial control equipment and use a library for that, you leave the realm of vendor-supported standard software solutions, anyway, so you could just use any other OPC UA library, which has the benefit of it not being taylored for Siemens.

By the way, same as above: if the customer demands Allen Bradley in their equipment, you won't get away with Siemens.

>freecad

It's the same as with electrical CAD. The big boys won't let you play if you don't have the right toys.

Besides, when I last used freecad, threading was a pain in the ass and I had to create threads manually with the spiral tool. Maybe things have improved, but moving the right triangle along a spiral with the right pitch manually to create a standardized thread is a pain in the ass. Things like this are OK for me as an hobbyist or for occasional use, but in a professional environment, they start to become expensive fast.

>>25585

>When you do CAD for money, the customer usually has requires that a specific software is used

that's news to me. afaik construction bureaus operate using only one cad system e.g. nx, solid works, catia for a number of reasons (service, security and costs to name but a few). and frankly i've never heard customers dictating devs and engineers what specific tools, computers and operating systems they ought to employ.

>networking

it's a communication suite for simatic.

>TIA-Portal for Linux.

i pointed to that specific site because there you can see what siemens sps devs generally think about linux being "shit". siemens offers now a complete debian based mini os dedicated to simatic and i'm pretty sure a linux build of tia-portal will be around rather sooner than later, too. meanwhile there's michael büsch's s7 software, which is foss and runs under linux, of course.
https://bues.ch/cms/automation/awlsim

>benefit of it not being taylored for Siemens

that's only a benefit if you're an israeli microsoft/intel fanboy. meanwhile even microsoft integrates a linux subsystem into their os.

>>25425

> Hegelian dialectic

which is horse shit. you can literally put whatever you want into thesis-antithesis-synthesis part. it has no system, it has no mathematical argument.

>marx was a big fan of darwin

yet he was too brainlet to understand him as he never received any kind of nature science related education.

darwin's theories say a big fuck you to deterministic theories, considering marx was a big and also very unsuccesfull determinist, it's safe to say the guy is not right about anything whatsover.

> then human civilization indeed goes "against" nature

civilization merely comes from bending our primitive power hungry nature to something greater. deep down we're primitive caveman that has acess to high up technology. it only takes 2 weeks to completely eradicate the thing called civilization. our instincts doesnt change our artifical system is changing and we are merely adapting but not by our instincst but with our conscious minds.

Oh goddamnit is everyone fleeing cabbagechan for some reason?

If this is pedobrit pls go

Also I think your analogy is pretty good but still somewhat inappropriate since Capitalism always seems to devolve into either a heavily regulated market where market forces hijack the machinery of government and large forces quash all competition through oligopoly friendly regulation or there is little to no government in which case over time wealth becomes concentrated so much that each megacorp becomes defacto government and society looks like Snowcrash or some other cyberpunk dystopia.

Frankly I think that a lot of the rationalization pro-Capitalists use is pretty similar to the same sort of utopian vision a lot of Communists use for their ideology. It is ultimately a pretty shit system and the problem is we are not different species and Capitalism is an inherently alienating and destructive system.

One could just as easily try to make the argument that Communism is like creating a stable environment or climate for the workers to create a system of interdependence themselves where the members of the ecosystem rely on each other and making it out to be the utopian vision rather than the reality, just like the reality in Capitalism is that you're always going to wind up with a Walmart making everybody dependent on it for the benefit of a tiny number of people who aren't even any longer a member of that community or even society while consciously forcing people to accept worse and worse conditions both in the workplace and in terms of pricing like the way cable companies and especially phone companies like trying to fuck their consumers with nickel and diming and shit contracts.

The added problem here is the simple fact that it takes a lot of startup money to become a competitive force, and even then any company is able to outcompete by sheer volume or to use some shady means to do it like lobbying lawmakers to come up with some expensive licenses that no small business can afford like say the way the "organic" industry is run so that you legally cant sell organic even if you only used cowshit and making the licensing super expensive, or getting it banned like tobacco companies are trying to do with vaping. In an environment with little to no government presence then companies can simply start sending hit squads your way and acting like the Italian mafia like some sort of cyberpunk game. The problem is, either one requires a utopian fantasy that ignores what happens in reality.

Think of it like an eternal poker game. The longer the game goes on more and more people get busted and those chips start accumulating in smaller and smaller hands until the say hundred people playing gets down to just a few, at which point those handful of players can dictate what happens. They can then to keep the other 95 players from getting violent start their own lottery or some system where every round a player is able to win a tiny stack of chips, or giving the player a chance to earn favors to get another chip to play again. When you get to a certain point in the system the few sets the rules and breaks the system entirely. Fact of the matter is, if you're somehow looking for an injection of capital youre simply not ever going to be able to compete with those guys who have towers of chips because they can squash you by sheer weight of what they have and will do so and can afford to spend astronomical sums all in an effort to bust you again just to maintain control.

A good example of this is how the Saudis just flooded the market with oil not even that long ago at a considerable loss for them for no other reason than to bankrupt all their competitors and maintain control. Numerous Texan companies went tits up over this because Saudis could afford to sell tons of their plentiful oil at a loss even and meanwhile no company was able to maintain selling their oil at even the kind of prices where Saudis would still make a profit or break even so it rapidly made all their competition bankrupt so they could maintain market control and resume their normal pricing.

The thing is is that in either case the equilibrium doesn't ever seem to work out like the way it does in nature with a well balanced ecosystem. In Capitalism it is more like gravity where the early solar system might look like everyone's got a chance but in fact over time everything accumulates in certain places with the big players into an entirely rigid and gridlocked system where nothing can really change.

See the thing is the only thing that is actually a game changer in a capitalist society is new technologies that enable the people who get in early to be the oligarchs. With bitcoin trading it was also because the corporations simply hadn't found a way to control it yet. Meanwhile you've got guys like Mr Hall who invented the synthetic diamond, yet like with everything else it was the company who reaped all the profits due to patent law.

There is also the problem that again, it is only one species and so humans can actually talk to each other and the big corporate concerns can arrive to private agreement on price fixing and becoming a cartel like say OPEC.

I ultimately don't think that the market works like a harmonious complex system like a biosphere because it will always seem to become unwieldy and degenerate into that kind of oligopoly and rigid price fixing, accumulation of capital into fewer and fewer hands with less and less competition, ability to lock out any small time competitor from becoming a threat etc. that will always ultimately over time just result in the same situation as having a politburo.

I think that the problem here is union busting. Your analogy actually does probably work if unions stay a thing, although they tend to degrade into cartels too. See the thing is the workers themselves should hold that power in the mutualist inter reliance I was talking about but that can only happen if the workers have means and will to do so. One auto mechanic not fixing your car is easily replaced by somebody else, especially in transnational capitalism where some foreigner can just be imported to take your job for even less pay than you were making when you dare ask for a raise.

Those requires the workers organizing themselves into actual species, to continue using your analogy, rather than lone wolves. The result would be businesses would have to be fair to workers because they need the workers and teh workers need the job but don't have means to own the business. It would have to be a situation where organized labor can leverage themselves and have that negotiating power to say look, you need our work so we expect tolerable working conditions and fair pay or we'll jam everything up for you.

The problem is that under current conditions the only market forces that really exist are the consumer and the business owner, and the consumers themselves also are not generally organized but businesses are. This again creates Communism like conditions.

I think you're onto something but what really needs to happen is a lot of healthy labor unions and consumer councils as a healthy counterweight to the business community. It might be my MURICAnism talking but I think we largely got it right about checks and balances on government power, except with the oversight of not thinking about how utterly corrupt a two party system can be, in similar manner to their lack of sight regarding how a society would form if you had no economic checks and balances or any economic freedom and democracy in the same sense.

The problem was that the Communists were trying to enact an economic freedom without a political one, and the US led West was trying to enact a political freedom without an economic one, and in either case there will never be ultimately any sort of stable interdependence like in an ecosystem but rather inevitably decline into a single corrupt all powerful entity that abuses and exploits the rest.

Very good topic though.