KrokanteBamischijf

You can do both though. Lots of high-profile software is both open source and available as SaaS.

The beauty of that strategy is you can ensure the software will survive your service provider going bankrupt or otherwise suddenly disappearing, leaving you without a solution.

By not being locked into a specific vendor, competition will be centered around providing the best service, which is in my opinion exactly as it should be.

I take issue with some of the statements here. First of all:

I find this whole "right to repair" really pointless endeavour pushed by repair shops wanting to retain their outdated business model.

Right to repair is definitely not just being pushed by repair shops. If you take a good look at the rate Framework is selling devices at (batches instantly sold out until Q1 2024), you'll see that consumers want this more than any other group. We, as the consumers will ultimately benefit the most from having repair options available. Right to repair is not meant to halt innovation, it is not about forcing manufacturers to design products in ways detrimental to the functioning of said products. It is about making sure they don't lock third parties out of the supply chain. If you replace a traditional capacitor with a SMD variant, someone is going to learn to micro solder. If you convert a chip from socketed to BGA mount, someone is going to learn how to use a heat plate and hot air gun to solder it back in to place.

The main problem is manufacturers demonstrably going out of their way to prevent the feasable.

The second part I take issue with is this:

It is probably better use of our collective resources to focus on researching technologies that will help us deconstruct these tiny components into their constituent matters

From my 12 years of experience in design of consumer goods and engineering for manufacturing I can tell you this is not happening because no one is going to pay for it. The more tightly you bond these "constituent matters" together, the more time, energy, reasearch and money it will require to convert them back into useful resources.

There is only one proper way to solve this problem and it is to include reclamation of resources into the product lifecycle design. Which is currently not widely done because companies put profits before sustainability. And this model will be upheld until legislation puts a halt to it or until earth's resources run out.

In terms of sustainability the desireable order of action is as follows:

• reduce: make it so you need less resources overall
• prolong: make it so you can make do as long as possible with your resources. this part includes repair when needed
• reuse: make it so that a product can be used for the same purpose again. this part includes repair when needed
• repurpose: make it so that a product can be used for a secondary purpose
• recycle: turn a product into resources to be used for making new products
• burn: turn the product into usable energy (by burning trash in power stations for example)
• dispose: usually landfill

I agree, reddit gets most of their traffic from the engagement surrounding the latest shitposts and low-effort memes. (Or just genuine community content if you prefer)

Months old posts are hardly relevant to large scale user engagement and it's unlikely that the one user trying to solve a problem by visiting a years old thread is going to have much of an impact.

If people are going to move away from the site in a healthy manner, they need to realise for themselves that it's time to move on. Better to have a bunch of hopeful and curious people looking for new opportunities rather than bitter and resentful users which are going to vent their frustration elsewhere.

And lets not forget about their crypto currency that you can earn by turning on special ads. Which they seemingly unironically called it "Basic Attent Tokens"..

That currency you can no longer obtain or even access if you live in an area where their specific custodian wallet providers aren't providing services? Yeah, the idea (the "official explanation") was kind of neat. Shame it turns out to be such a shitshow. In the current state I would rather rebrand the abbreviation to BAT: Bullshit Acceptance Token.

Ik ben de hele tijd bang dat mijn reactie overdreven is. Maar het was echt heel eng, vooral dat hij me echt een heel groot stuk gevolgd is. Ik heb ook een verleden waarbij ik meer vervelende ervaringen heb ik dit vlak en dit heeft die herinneringen daaraan flink getriggerd.

Wat anderen ervan denken is niet relevant. "Overdreven" is een subjectief begrip en is volledig afhankelijk van jouw referentiekader. Wat je op dat moment voelt, en hoe je daar later op terugkijkt, en vooral wat het met je doet is hier van belang. Zolang anderen niet in jouw schoenen staan hebben ze ook geen recht op een oordeel of dit een overdreven reactie is of niet (dat neemt helaas niet weg dat ze wel een oordeel zullen hebben).

Je bent slachtoffer in deze context, en jouw reactie komt voort uit het onrecht dat je wordt aangedaan. Volgens mij is dat al erg genoeg om je druk om te maken, wat anderen vinden van hoe je ermee omgaat is extra ballast.

Iedereen heeft het recht om in zijn/haar waarde gelaten te worden op het gebied van angsten. Bij PTSS hebben die angsten helaas een sterkere en invloedrijke aanwezigheid, maar daarvoor heb je dan ook hulp van de psycholoog.

Ik vind het moedig dat je de intentie hebt om terug te gaan, en ik kan het ook zeker aanbevelen om dat gewoon te doen. Iemand meenemen is dan een goede manier om niet bezig te hoeven zijn met het "stel-dat"-scenario, want dat heb je al afgedekt met een bodyguard. Maar bedenk wel dat je op die manier ook niet of minder geconfronteerd wordt met je vervelende ervaring. Jezelf echt goed wapenen tegen dit soort situaties lukt natuurlijk alleen maar als je ook stevig in je schoenen staat. Maak voor jezelf (eventueel samen met de psycholoog) daarom de afweging welke strategie het beste past bij wat jij nodig hebt.

En bekijk het misschien ook eens van deze kant: Het feit dat de dader dit soort acties kennelijk nodig heeft zegt veel over diens mentale toestand. Daarmee gaat het voor de dader misschien niet eens zozeer om jou als persoon, maar om de reactie die het teweeg brengt. Het kan best wel eens zo zijn dat de dader er juist op uit is om je onveilig te laten voelen en dat daar de kick vandaan komt. In dat geval is de lol er natuurlijk direct af als je geheel tegen de verwachtingen in gaat. Maar ook dat is natuurlijk wel afhankelijk van of dat voor jou haalbaar is. Zo niet, dan zit de dader nog altijd fout.

CATIA is also developed by Dassault Systèmes, yes. But I have never seen it used outside of highly niche markets.

My original comment is based on my experience in mass-scale manufacturing and inudstrial design, which is a market absolutelty dominated by Solidworks.

For an individual user $100k might be much, but that is not a situation where Solidworks makes financial sense unless you run a really successful small business.

If you're a design team working on anything made out of plastic for the consumer market, you're probably going to want something like the following:

• Concurrent licences of Solidworks, $4k to $8k each
• Solidworks Simulation Premium, $11k
• Solidworks Plastics Premium, $22k
• Some form of PDM system, $2.5k
• Maintenance subscription for all the above, ~15k yearly (or just be happy with a perpetual licence and no updates) And most resellers are going to charge you implementation fees for setting things up properly, so unless you have a capable IT department you're likely looking at well over $50k before taxes just to get up and running.

$100k is definitely not a huge stretch if you're using Solidworks in a business environment.

There is a reason for it: The manufacturing industry is really conservative when it comes to software. Solidworks has been the industry standard for a long time and that prompts adoption the same way Adobe products have been the standard for the visual creative industry.

Solidworks is whitout a doubt the most powerful suite of CAD tools available if money is of no concern. With licenses for the full suite totaling near $100k. They were also the first to seamlessly integrate injection moulding simulation simulation workflows for designing plastic parts.

All of this is hardly relevant for the hobbyist or maker comunities, but it does explain why so many people in the industry tend to touch Solidworks at some point in time.

Blender is awesome for modeling, but it does not do parametric modeling, which makes its use limited outside of game art / VFX workflows. It's more suited as a replacement for Maya/3DS Max than it is for replacing Solidworks.

That said, there is the CAD Sketcher plugin which makes Blender behave slightly more like a parametric modeler.

There is also Plasticity, which behaves like an oddly satisfying mix between Blender and parametric CAD. It's built on Parasolid, which is the same geometry kernel powering Solidworks and Siemens NX.

Do learn Blender, but use it for further detailing your models and making renders. The best way to export for Blender I've found is through Solidworks Visualize, which can export to OBJ and FBX formats. Depending on what you're rendering, you might have to spend some time UV unwrapping in order to get textures to map properly.

Bonus tip: If you have a VR headset give Gravity Sketch a try, it's a great way to do conceptual design sketching and NURBS modeling in a really intuitive way. I'm confident VR/AR is the future of 3D modeling if diffusion models don't fully replace the need for it in the near future.

To be perfectly honest nothing even comes close to the level of productivity I get in Solidworks. And I've tried them all.

Fusion360 is a great alternative if you don't mind depending on cloud-services for your software to work properly. It handles some things in a more modern way than Solidworks does, and I really like some of the features, it's just the way the software is built cloud-first that really pisses me off.

Then there's Inventor, which is actually has some interesting features if you're a mechanical engineer. The current version is perfectly capable of most things you can do with Solidworks, although I would argue drafting parts is much more of a pain.

If you're into open source software there's always FreeCAD, which is what masochists use for their fix. (Honestly it's not that bad, but there's absolutely no polish to the user experience)

If you like to use tablets or phones for anything, you could give Onshape a go. It's a pretty great lightweight replacement, all things considered.

Last, but not least: Altair Inspire. If you like working with generative design this might be the alternative for you. Really fun to work with, but not a full-blown replacement for everything Solidworks offers.

Going into a little more detail:

There are plenty of ways to do open source, and the differences mostly come down to the license something is published under. Some licenses prohibit redistribution, while others restrict commercial use. One of the more popular permissive licenses is the GNU General Public License (or GPL for short). Which you can read up on over here.

Technically there's nothing stopping you from ignoring the terms of the license agreement and just doing whatever. Think "agreeing to the terms without actually reading them". While the licenses are usually proper grounds for legal action, it depends on the project and the resources associated wether actual legal action is within the realm of possibilities.

When it comes to "everything is open source", you're technically correct in the sense that you can reverse engineer everything and the amount of work you're willing to put in is the only limiting factor. Compiled code and techniques like code obfuscation and encryption will pose barriers, but they will not protect from someone determined to get in. In the same way a door lock will not protect you from someone who brings a blowtorch.

Some code is technically not open source, but is delivered in human-readable form. This is the case for things like websites and scripts in languages like python. Other software is compiled (pre-converted to specific instructions for your processor), and is delivered in binary, which is not particularly human-readable. But with the right tools even binary applications can be "decompiled" and converted into something slightly more closely resembling the original source code.

A great one liner from the YouTube channel Low-level Learning is "everything is open source if you can read assembly".

So, in summary: It depends how you look at it, generally speaking open source means that te source code is available for the public to see and that you're free to submit any suggestions or improvements to the code, no matter who you are. In practise the source code is sometimes visible (out of technical necessity or for troubleshooting purposes) even though the product is not open source, in which case the end user license agreement will likely contain a clause prohibiting you from doing anything with it.

(toegegeven, soms met 1 versnelling die het niet zo goed meer doet).

In heel veel gevallen kun je dat soort gekkigheid nog wel een beetje verhelpen door je versnellingskabel te stellen. Heb je vaak niet eens gereedschap voor nodig.

Zelf onderhoud doen is vaak simpeler, sneller en VEEL goedkoper dan het lijkt.

De kans is groot dat Fixie niet de enige manier zal zijn om een melding te doen. Veel gemeenten hebben bijvoorbeeld ook een formulier op de website, of zijn via meerdere apps aangesloten.

Meldingen via verschillende routes komen allemaal in dezelfde bak terecht, dus het maakt niet zo veel uit welke optie je pakt. Maar check inderdaad wel even of jouw gemeente ook daadwerkelijk gebruik maakt van het kanaal wat je voor ogen hebt.