Personal on ManuSoft

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Mon, 16 Mar 2015 01:59:57 +0000

Although my blog has become relatively stagnant, the rest of my life has been changing — and there are even bigger changes ahead.

My children have been growing into adulthood one by one, and my parenting time has been shrinking as a result. To take up the slack, I bought a bike a few years ago and started riding it on the many local bike trails. Initially cycling was a way to get healthy and enjoy the outdoors, but it has turned into much more. Riding a bike is great exercise, but it’s also a fantastic social activity when you do it with friends, and I have made many new friends in the very large and growing cycling community here in Ohio.

QuirkyPolyline: exposing foolish programmers

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 02:38:45 +0000

In AutoCAD, the AcDbCurve class defines a general parametrized curve. On a parametrized curve, points in space are mapped to real numbers (parameters) by an arbitrary function F(p) for values of p from the curve start parameter to the curve end parameter. Defining a curve this way simplifies working with complex 3D curves because one can work in the curve’s one dimensional “parameter space” instead of the more complex three dimensional cartesian space.

A tale of two tethers

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:08:15 +0000

Those of you using your Android phone as an internet connection may be paying more than you need to pay. Many phone companies here in the US charge extra to enable tethering capability, either by providing their own OEM tethering app or by enabling the phone to serve as a Wi-fi hotspot.

All your base are belong to us

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:15:40 +0000

Excited news stories this morning about how your computer is vulnerable to attack from a phone plugged into your USB port made me chuckle. This “novel hack” involves making an Android phone mimic a USB keyboard in order to send keystrokes to the computer. Cool, but why wouldn’t a hacker just use a USB keyboard in the first place?

Infinite Computing: Bah, Humbug!

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:49:45 +0000

At Autodesk University, Autodesk CEO Carl Bass introduced the term “Infinite Computing” in an attempt to define Autodesk’s perspective on “the cloud” from a unique angle. I think the term is a brilliant and effective use of terminology because it focuses an otherwise nebulous concept and it radiates a sense of real and immediate purpose.

All your tweets are belong to us

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:00:21 +0000

The Library of Congress announced yesterday that they are archiving every tweet ever published. I think a lot of people consider their tweets (and Facebook messages) as ephemeral writing that disappears into the ether, without thinking about the implications of its survival (mildly NSFW).

A brief history of copyright

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:32:30 +0000

Tyler Ochoa (law professor and two time “Jeopardy!” champion) writes an interesting post about the 300th anniversary of the first copyright law, called the Statute of Anne. Referring to the motivation behind the original law, Ochoa says “Although the Stationers were chiefly concerned with restoring and perpetuating their monopoly, they framed their petition to Parliament in terms of justice for authors.” In many respects, not much has changed since 1710.

What's In A Name?

Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:53:00 +0000

There is a relationship between what we call something (or someone) and how we feel about it. This relationship works both ways. We use names to convey feelings, but a name can also affect how we feel about something.

This leads to some interesting, and sometimes funny, names. For example, it leads to gimmicks like the authoritarian “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, and bug fixes called “updates” (or “stability improvements” as I saw recently).

Using a craftily devised name to project an image is not new, but I think the practice is abused to such an extent these days that the value of names has become worthless. Furthermore, all the good names are already taken. Therefore, I propose to abolish all names and henceforth use only GUIDs (or for the less democratically inclined, serial numbers issued by a central numbering authority).

RIP Alan Kalameja

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:05:00 +0000

I saw in the March 8 edition of the TenLinks Daily newsletter that Alan Kalameja passed away at age 55. Condolences to his family. Alan hired me to write test questions for an AutoCAD certification exam in the early ’90s (I don’t recall which version, but probably either R12 or R13). That was one of my first real contracting jobs. Although it wasn’t very glamorous, it made me feel important, and undoubtedly helped focus my fledgling consulting business on AutoCAD. Thanks, Alan, for giving me that opportunity.

Google killed the radio star

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:40:00 +0000

This post is inspired by a conversation I had with a nephew, and it hearkens to the same nostalgic emotions engendered by the first music video on MTV.

I was a young inquisitive child growing up in the 70s in an Amish household. Without access to modern technology, I struggled at age 11 to build an oscillator circuit by using sheet metal cut from an old stovepipe, a 9 volt battery fitted into a piece of 2x6 pine, dynamite wire scavenged from the nearby strip mine, and a speaker and 555 timer IC that I cut out of some electronic equipment dug out of the local garbage dump.

The achievement was incredible considering the circumstances, but thinking back, I have very little recollection of the actual consummation of the project. I assume I probably showed it proudly to my friends, who would have been awestruck, but completely ignorant of how it worked or why it was important to me. I simply don’t remember what I did with the project after it was complete.

What I do remember fondly is the struggle to achieve; the thrill of the hunt. I struggled to get information. I had obtained a prized 555, but I had to wait for weeks until the next trip to the city so I could stop by Radio Shack to get a pinout of the 555 along with circuit diagrams showing how to use it. Then I had to find components. I had long since built a treasure trove of capacitors and resistors that I had salvaged from discarded electronics, along with a pot full of potentiometers that I could use to adjust the oscillator frequency, but I still had to scavenge for some missing components.

The challenges of the quest made the final result more satisfying. It was the search for the holy grail that etched itself into my memory; I barely remember the grail itself.

Over the holidays during a family gathering, one of my Amish nephews was anxious to pick my brain. He explained that someone had told him that it’s possible to convert an electric motor into a generator, and so he set out on a quest to build a generator from an old electric motor and a small gasoline engine. The quest involved several letters mailed back and forth between people he knew that might have information about how to go about the task. He tried and tried, but could not get his generator to work.

I explained to him how he needed to remove the external circuitry from his motor so that it wouldn’t foul up the results; how he can add a rectifier and a regulator to generate direct current output. The excitement over this new discovery was written all over the young man’s face as he anticipated more adventure.

On the way home, I thought to myself that Google could quickly and easily have provided the answers that my nephew sought. But then it occurred to me that Google would also have deprived him of the struggle and adventure of discovery that motivates him to continue the quest.

I wonder how many young minds are missing out on the supreme adventure of discovery because we live in a modern culture where all the knowledge in the universe is seemingly already at our fingertips, just a Google search away.

Evil Banks

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:10:00 +0000

A lot of you are probably having to cut back on your expenses to make ends meet in this economic downturn. I’ve drastically reduced my discretionary spending, postponed the purchase of new office equipment, and investigated less expensive alternatives to a lot of my monthly expense items. I’ve also been streamlining and reorganizing my finances, which inevitably involves a lot of contact with banks.

Kean Walmsley’s post about his recent bank customer service issue motivated me to post about one of my recent bank experiences.

First of all, I’m here to tell you that banks do make mistakes. I’m sure that the vast majority of the time when your check book doesn’t balance, it was you that made a mistake, and not the bank. But if you are cursed like I am, then banks delight in creating phantom overdrafts and charging you exorbitant overdraft fees, then, when confronted with their error, apologizing and refunding the fees (after the damage is done and all those bounced checks have caused you to incur returned check charges from your creditors). That has happened twice to me in the past two months, with two different banks and two completely unrelated accounts.

In both cases, the bank eventually fixed the error, but I’m still out the returned check charges and whatever damage that has done to my credit rating.

One of the “returned” payments was a credit card payment. Of course, I did not get notified about this until the day after the payment due date, so it was too late to fix the problem in time to prevent another exorbitant late fee from being charged by the credit card bank.

Obviously the returned check triggered some alarms at the credit card bank, because I started receiving phone calls begging me to make a payment immediately. Irritated, I decided to make the credit card bank wait until the next due date before making the replacement payment. I figured my late fee bought me that extra time, so I might as well use it. My patience paid off: after a few futile attempts at collecting their late payment, the bank offered to refund the late fee if I made an immediate payment. That’s what I’m talking about!

What's New in the AutoCAD 2010 EULA

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:55:00 +0000

Everyone else is discussing all the cool new features in AutoCAD 2010, so I decided to have a look at what’s new in the EULA (End User License Agreement). I compared the AutoCAD 2010 EULA for US/Canada to the AutoCAD 2009 EULA. I won’t divulge the process I used to automate the comparison, because the odds are pretty good that I violated the EULA somewhere along the way, and I want plausible deniability.

The first change I noticed is that the AutoCAD 2010 EULA contains more shouting. The 2009 EULA started out in a fairly mellow mixed case with a few shouts thrown in for effect, but the 2010 EULA dispenses with the lower case and launches right into a multi-paragraph avalanche of screaming block letters. Apparently nobody was listening, so they turned up the volume.

Substantively, there are a number of very interesting changes. The following was added to the preamble:

SOFTWARE OBTAINED FROM THIRD PARTIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED OR ALLOWED BY AUTODESK, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO SUPPLY SOFTWARE IS LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE IN VIOLATION OF AUTODESK’S RIGHTS. IN SUCH AN EVENT, AUTODESK IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE AN ACTIVATION CODE OR OTHERWISE PERMIT YOU TO INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE.

Next time you’re eyeing that used copy of AutoCAD 2010 on eBay, be warned that Autodesk is not obligated to permit you to install or use the software. They don’t come right out and say that they won’t allow it, so maybe they won’t mind – but then what’s the point of including this clause? Tim Vernor won’t be very happy about this change.

Moving along, I see that they added a definition for “Uninstall”, defining it as “to destroy or remove”. The definition of “User Documentation” was very slightly changed from “…after You acquire or Install the Software…” to “…when or after You acquire or Install the Software…”. Incidentally, did you know that Autodesk considers an AutoCAD reseller’s invoice to be “user documentation”?

Rounding out changes in definitions is a change in the definition of “You”. Yes, Autodesk has redefined “You” whether “you” like it or not.

I could go on and on about small wording changes, and while it would be interesting to contemplate why each change was made (and how many scheming lawyers it took to do it), we’d risk missing the forest for the trees.

Section 2.1, “License Grant”, contains ominous new language. The following has been added:

You may Access the application programming interfaces that may be included with or in the Software or otherwise available from Autodesk for use with the Software (“API’s”) to develop programs, modules, components or functionality that (i) are compatible with and are used and/or interfaced with the Software and (ii) contribute significant value-added functionality or enhancements to the Software (“API Modules”) provided You may Install and Access such API Modules solely on Computers where a licensed copy of the Software is also installed and further provided such Installation and Access is solely in connection with Your Installation and Access of the Software and solely for Your internal business needs. You may not redistribute all or any portion of an API Module.

Read that again. That’s right, you may not write any “programs, modules, components, or functionality” unless they “contribute significant value-added functionality or enhancements” to AutoCAD. Furthermore, if you do manage to write a program that adds significant functionality, you may not redistribute all or any part of it. What are those guys smoking out there in California?

Finally at the end of section 2.1, they changed “No license is granted under the terms of this Agreement if You did not lawfully acquire the Software” to “No license is granted under the terms of this Agreement if You did not lawfully acquire the Software from Autodesk or from a third party who has been permitted or authorized by Autodesk either directly or indirectly to supply the Software”. Take that Tim Vernor!

In another nod to the Vernor case, section 2.3, “Upgrades”, adds a new requirement to “destroy all Autodesk Materials relating to the Previous Version or, upon request by Autodesk, return all such Autodesk Materials relating to the Previous Version to Autodesk or the company from which they were acquired”. This is important language that could persuade a court to view an AutoCAD purchase as a license instead of a sale, thereby giving Autodesk the power to control the secondary market.

Interestingly, section 2.4, “Crossgrades”, requires that the previous software be uninstalled within 60 days, but has no requirement that it be destroyed. However, new language in section 2.7, “Termination”, which requires the software to be destroyed “upon termination of the license grant or this Agreement”, apparently covers both cases.

A funny change in section 3.2.3, “Transfers”, appears to close a loophole. The AutoCAD 2009 EULA disallowed transfers to “any other person”; the AutoCAD 2010 EULA disallows transfers to “any other person or legal entity”. Considering a license transfer? Make sure it’s to an illegal entity!

Section 4, “ALL RIGHTS RESERVED”, was rewritten. The rewrite introduced a grammatical error (“and You have not other rights”), but otherwise I don’t see that much changed. It still ends with the now familiar directive that “The Software and User Documentation are licensed, not sold."

Finally, the infamous “audit clause” has been revised. Not the way you may have hoped, I’m sad to report. Luckily the change was a minor one that doesn’t make the clause any more overbearing than it already was.

Isn’t change wonderful?

Software Licensing: A Case For Reform

Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:03:00 +0000

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.

Software Licensing: Who's On First?

Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:48:00 +0000

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.

The Software Limbo

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:51:00 +0000

Bruce Schneier argues that data is the pollution of the information age, and “just as 100 years ago people ignored pollution in our rush to build the Industrial Age, today we’re ignoring data in our rush to build the Information Age.”

The Petcock Problem

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:56:00 +0000

Many years ago, I worked for the small town where I grew up. My title was Street Commissioner. This is a very small town, and I was a part time employee with one helper. Basically, I was the guy what fixed things. We had a very old network of water pipes that supplied water from several wells. The water system leaked in many places. Occasionally, a small leak turned into a big leak, and something had to be done about it.

You might think that the first response to a big water leak would be to close the water valves in order to isolate the leak and prevent the loss of valuable water. Not so fast!

First of all, in an interconnected network that had been upgraded and patched by piecework for many decades, it wasn’t always possible for small localized segments to be isolated, and turning off the water for a large area would inevitably lead to discord.

Second, closing even a single valve caused pressures throughout the system to change. Any pressure change anywhere in the system had the potential to cause new failures at weak points, which would just compound the problem.

Furthermore, at some point repairs could be counterproductive and completely replacing parts of the network would be the best option. This would require time for the town council to approve the funds, and for contractors to be hired, and for the work to be scheduled and completed – all while the leaking water is causing collateral damage to the roadway and inconveniencing the affected residents with low water pressure.

Eventually the big leak had to be repaired, and the water had to be turned off somewhere before the repair could be completed. The decision about where and how to accomplish this was not a simple decision, due to the competing factors involved, and the practical realities a small town is faced with.

I call this problem the Petcock Problem. Imagine petcock valves scattered throughout a network of pipes. I call this the Petcock Problem because petcock valves typically have three positions, analogous to the notion of closing, opening, or redirecting connections on the network in order to isolate a fault.

The Petcock Problem would apply in many situations involving complex networks, such as when a tree knocks down a power line or when an internet router dies. Sometimes the best solution is to isolate the fault to the most localized part of the network possible, thereby inconveniencing the least number of people at the expense of putting the larger network at greater risk of a much larger catastrophe. Sometimes the best solution is to shut down the entire network temporarily, thereby inconveniencing everybody that relies on the network, but removing any risk of further degradation while repairs are completed. Most of the time the best solution is somewhere in between these extremes. As the network ages and faults become more commonplace, at some point the best solution is to scrap the entire network and build a new one.

This is the Petcock Problem, or “How do you stop the bleeding?”. The solution involves balancing several variables, some of which are known quantities, some of which are wild guesses, and some of which are potentially very chaotic (in that a small change in value could have an unpredictable impact on the outcome).

[Disclaimer: I’m sure that the study of network topologies has its own terms of art and well researched algorithms for describing and solving these types of problems. I’m not claiming to have some new revelation about networks here. This is just my own little custom worldview.]

In a future post I will explain how the Petcock Problem applies to something as diverse as the Vernor lawsuit.

Autodesk Design Review 2010 Snake Oil Alert

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:35:00 +0000

From a new features overview of Autodesk Design Review 2010 comes the following snake oil claim:

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.

Update vs. Service Pack

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:28:00 +0000

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.

Ed Foster: Loss Of A Legend

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:35:00 +0000

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 CAD/Court 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.

The Magic Baseball Bat

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:48:00 +0000

This is a story about my 11 year old son, Nick, and a father’s pride.

I coached Nick’s Little League baseball team this year, and now that the regular season is over I’m coaching an 11-12 year old All Star team. Being the youngest on the team, Nick struggles with his self confidence even though he’s an excellent baseball player. He’s not the tallest player, but he’s faster and more athletic than many of his older teammates. Even so, he doesn’t want to take any risks or make any mistakes, and his insecurities often prevent him from performing at his best.

A few weeks ago in the league tournament Nick hit a ball against the fence, just short of going over. That was the closest he came all season to hitting one out, and was perhaps the first time he started to believe that it was possible. A few nights after our team was eliminated from the championship tournament, a kid hit a walk off grand slam with 1 out in the bottom of the 6th, down 9 - 6. Nick and I were there to watch it. I heard that the same kid hit one more out of the park later in the tournament. Those were very likely the only two over-the-fence home runs all year in our local league.

Sometime during tournament time, Nick’s baseball bat disappeared from the trunk of my car. I suspect he didn’t close the trunk all the way one night, and someone stole it during the night. The following week, in exchange for Nick agreeing to mow the lawn this summer, I bought him a shiny new baseball bat, a new bat bag, and new cleats to replace the old ones with holes in their toes. Nick was itching to play again so he could try out his new toys.

Fast forward to the all star team’s second scrimmage earlier this week. In his first at bat, Nick got walked (then stole second, third, and home over the course of the next few pitches). In his second at bat, Nick hit a hard line drive into the gap, and got to second with a stand-up double. It was just a scrimmage, there was no pressure, and Nick was feeling good about himself, perhaps even daring to feel confident in himself.

His third time at the plate, Nick crushed the first pitch well over the center field fence amid groans from the opposing team. There was a mixture of surprise and elation among the other players on our team. Some had never seen a player at this level hit a ball over the fence, and I even had to remind them that they were allowed to enter the field to greet Nick as he crossed home plate.

The excitement was soon forgotten as the game moved along, until Nick came up to bat again and everyone jokingly told him to hit another home run. And then, with two strikes, two out, and two on, he did it again!

It’s amazing how much difference a shiny new bat can make.

Hotel Autodesk

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:06:00 +0000

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.

The Day the ObjectARX SDK Died

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:09:00 +0000

Like that day almost 50 years ago, could today be the day that ObjectARX has died?

There have been a flurry of posts in the ObjectARX discussion group about problems downloading the new ObjectARX 2009 SDK. At first I dismissed the problems as new release hiccups, and expected things to get resolved in short order. Seeing that there were no new complaints this morning, I headed over to http://www.objectarx.com/ to download the new ObjectARX 2009 SDK. Instead of the new ObjectARX 2009 SDK, I received the following:

Creative Marketing

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:33:00 +0000

This Autodsys press release made me chuckle. Their IntelliCAD based AcceliCAD now supports custom entities, announces the press release. “Instead of creating custom objects as is necessary in some other CAD packages the application developer can instead use the primitives already built into the program such as LINEs, ARCs, CIRCLEs, and POLYLINEs.” Hmmm, that sounds an awful lot like blocks in AutoCAD – a feature AcceliCAD has surely supported since its inception.

The press release continues, “That means there is no need to define grip points or editing operations for the entities because those functions are already built into AcceliCAD."

ObjectARX programmers have been able to create custom objects in AutoCAD for years. One of the most common reasons for creating a custom object is to “define grip points or editing operations”. Otherwise, blocks work just fine in most cases.

Maps Are Evil

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:55:00 +0000

One of the defining characteristics that distinguish humans from computers is our ability to act irrationally. Our biological computer system is capable of interjecting an otherwise logical thought process with random perturbations that often result in completely unpredictable outcomes. Looked at in the abstract, this is the essence of how we escape the shackles of destiny and turn an otherwise mundane march of time into a serendipity of human experience.

In practical terms, it’s our ability to make mistakes that gives us supremacy over mere electronic circuits. If we were simply pre-programmed machines, we would be no better, and perhaps no different, than a computer. By making mistakes, we learn. By taking risks, we discover. By challenging and disregarding what is already known, we learn what is not.

And that, my friends, is why maps are evil.

Digital Signatures: Philosophically Speaking

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:11:00 +0000

There is nothing magical about digital signatures. They are simply an electronic mark used to signify a promise and to cement faith in the document or transaction to which that promise is attached. Some day digital signatures will be as commonplace among CAD professionals as the human readable “wet stamp” is today. However it must also be said that, just as CAD did not make architects more creative, digital signature technology will not make engineers more trustworthy.

The technology to use digital signatures has been around for well over 20 years, and a wide variety of software tools exist today that make digital signatures easy to use on almost any platform. So why is the use of digital signatures not more widespread? Primarily because the utopian dream of a paperless world has yet to materialize.

So long as hardcopy on paper is regarded as the authentic “record” version of a document, digital signatures are virtually useless. Even if new buildings are designed completely in CAD, an architect’s digital signature simply won’t mean anything if downstream consumers of the building design require a paper blueprint. The true benefits of a paperless world simply can’t be realized until every link in the chain has joined the digital club. So long as even a single node on the distribution tree requires a human readable method of verifying authenticity, the architect is forced to use a handwritten wet signature on paper blueprints from the very start.

Handwritten signatures can be scanned into an electronic format, but then they lose their putative value because a digital facsimile is so easily reproduced. Therefore only original and unique handwritten wet signatures are trustworthy in a human readable form. Digital signatures do not translate to paper because they are not human readable. Therefore digital signatures only have value for a document in electronic form. This maxim is fundamental to a proper understanding of the emerging digital signature technology: digital data can only be securely signed by computers; and human readable documents can only be securely signed by humans.

I see many people in the CAD industry looking for a hybrid solution to this paper vs. digital dilemma by using a “digitized signature” (i.e. handwritten on paper, then scanned into electronic format) so that printed output contains this digitized signature. This cannot even remotely be considered a digital signature! There is simply no such thing as a secure printed digitized signature. Yes, you can digitally sign a document that has an embedded digitized signature, but once it is printed, that digitized signature is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Not only could that signature be stolen from the document and used maliciously, there is no way to tell from the signature alone whether or not it has already been stolen and used maliciously.

The only hybrid approach that is practical and legally sound is to use digital and wet signatures in parallel. Using an architect as an example, this would mean creating and disseminating two sets of signed documents: the CAD model of a building (perhaps converted into a common 2D format like PDF, DWFx, or XPS) with the architect’s digital signature and paper blueprints with the architect’s individually handwritten wet signature.

A number of companies claim to sell some sort of hybrid solution involving the creation of a secure digitized signature. This is simply capitalism – selling something useless just because there is a market for it. A digitized signature is only secure if it is never used. I’ve heard the rationalization that the digitized signature printed on paper meets a psychological need for people accustomed to seeing one, even if it has no legal value. In my opinion, such pandering borders on deception and serves only to further alienate digital signature technology from those who would benefit from it. This sort of abuse is typified by an emailed PDF file consisting of a scanned document with a handwritten signature. In such cases, checking the sender’s email address likely becomes the most reliable way to verify the document’s trustworthiness. Spam filters bear witness to the fact that the sender’s email address is the most important – and often only – criteria we use in determining the level of trust to place in emailed documents. This is an important point to keep in mind.

The act of applying a digital signature requires the use of a secure private encryption key, but the digital signature alone does not provide security in any way. Digitally signing a document does not prevent it from being modified or stolen. In that respect it is no different than a handwritten wet signature. However, unlike a wet signature that cannot be easily duplicated, a digital signature does not prevent a signed document from being copied. This does not make digital signatures inferior. On the contrary, making copies is necessary and commonplace in the digital world, so the fact that exact copies of digitally signed documents are still trustworthy is a huge benefit over handwritten signatures.

There are other notable differences between a digital signature and a handwritten signature. Digital signatures can be time-stamped, thus providing reliable evidence that a document was signed on or before a certain time. A disadvantage of digital signatures is that they are only as reliable as the digital ID used to create them. To combat this problem, a public clearinghouse of compromised digital IDs must be maintained, and auditing systems must be in place to immediately detect and report suspicious activity. Time stamped digital signatures created before a digital ID is compromised can be easily and certainly distinguished from compromised signatures if properly designed and competently managed infrastructure is in place. This is necessary to ensure that previously existing digital signatures survive a compromising event.

In conclusion, adequate technical solutions and time tested safeguards already exist for successfully using digital signatures in a professional environment, but digital consumers still need to learn how to work within the limitations of the technology. Building an acceptable comfort level with a technology that must by its nature completely replace something as significant and culturally ingrained as the handwritten signature will not be easy or quick, but it is inevitable.

The War On Security

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:35:00 +0000

Security and encryption legend Bruce Schneier posted this essay:
The War on the Unexpected

I think we should all be reminded that representative governments are always at risk of death by democracy: suicide under the watchful eyes of a body politic beholden only to the next election.

Brutal

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:45:00 +0000

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.

Rational Ignorance

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:11:00 +0000

Reading the discussion about the reluctance to move to 3D/BIM in the latest issue of upFront.eZine reminded me of the principle of rational ignorance. The principle of rational ignorance applies when the perceived cost of obtaining knowledge is greater than the perceived benefit. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, where individuals rationalize their decision to remain ignorant based on their perception of the (lack of) benefit in the very thing they are ignorant about.

It is interesting to think about the 2D to 3D paradigm shift in terms of shifting the balance in the rational ignorance equation. I think there’s also another principle at work here: Newton’s Third Law. The harder the collective movers and shakers try to push, the harder the end users resist. Maybe if the software companies stopped pushing so hard, the shift would occur naturally with much less resistance.

By the way, I noticed a familiar theme in the upFront eZine discussion: those resistant to the paradigm shift lament the lost art of drafting and fail to believe that the new paradigm no longer needs artisans. Obviously there are other factors at work here – factors over which no amount of logic will prevail.

Egyptian Pyramid Scheme

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:41:00 +0000

Deelip Menezes asks what got me started on lamenting the sad state of the CAD industry in my previous post. Good question.

It all started with a Fox News story about a French architect’s claim to have solved the “Pyramid Secret”: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262981,00.html. The article links to Dassault Systemes’ web site: http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/. My snake oil alarm went off when I saw the site. I’ll admit I didn’t read it, but it looks like a slick marketing ploy. I was irritated that I fell for it. It reminded me of how insideous and incestuous this industry has become, now reaching out to mainstream media in search of new victims.

Lamenting

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:43:00 +0000

In some ways the CAD software industry is a lot like the fashion industry. The movers and shakers are trying to establish new fads that are just recycled from older fads, while guiding the unwashed masses into adopting new trends that have been carefully molded to ensure perpetuation of the system. Meanwhile the up and comers try desperately to get a share of the action, while an entire industry of hangers-on tries to eke out a living from the scraps left behind by the big players.

It’s a tired old symphony played on the world stage, with pretty much the same players today as twenty years ago. The same seamstresses making the same old faux fluff, dressing it up a bit, draping it over a new model, and parading it down the same old runways.

Bah! I’m going outside, maybe that’ll cheer me up.

Five things you may not know about me

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:37:00 +0000

I’m sure that by now all of you have heard about the latest “chain letter” circulating about the blogosphere. It sounds suspiciously like bloggers patting each other on the back. To wit, I’ve been “tagged” by Evan Yares. On principle, and just because I like to be contrary, I refuse to pass this one on, but I’ll go part of the way since there is some redeeming social value to the premise. The five:

I was a difficult child. I ran away from home routinely before I started Kindergarten. I still have memories of the summer just before my third birthday of almost daily forays with my dog “Shep” into the woods adjacent to my parents’ property. Sometimes, after a dispute with my parents, I would take off deep into the woods plotting revenge. One day, after some altercation or other, I narrowly escaped my whip-wielding mother by diving under a barbed wire fence and racing into the woods before she could catch up. My mother spent hours searching for me, and finally spotted me hiding under some brambles. After rounding me up and taking me back home, mom tied me with a rope to a post outside our workshop until my father came home from work. When my father came home, he didn’t have the heart to punish me further.
I was raised Amish. When I was 12, I installed a battery operated radio tuner in my basement workshop, and wired the output through a hidden network of wires (that included our hot water heating pipes as one side of the circuit) into a recessed wall outlet beside my bed so that I could listen to the radio discreetly from my bed through a small earpiece. Later I did something similar when my parents bought my first horse and buggy, by hiding the guts of a portable stereo under the seat.
Amish children are expected to quit school after the 8th grade and begin working (traditionally on the family farm, although farming is becoming less common these days). I chose to continue my education by going on to high school while working evenings and summers to support myself. For this, I was ridiculed and called names in school, and my parents caught a lot of flack from their church elders for my actions (which they had very little control over). I chose not to go on to college after graduating in the top 5 of my class in high school.
My first full time job was as a brick mason, following in my father’s footsteps. I did masonary and other construction work the last two summers of high school, and full time for a year or so after I graduated. One day a family friend called to ask if I would be interested in a “computer job” programming a CNC punch press. The company had unceremoniously fired the previous programmer and had nobody with the skills to replace him. My interview went something like “Do you know anything about computers?” “Yes.” “Can you start tomorrow?” It was at that company where I discovered AutoCAD, and the rest, as they say, is history.
A few years ago, I played poker on a show broadcast across the United States on Fox SportsNet. The show was sponsored by UltimateBet.net, an online poker site. The winner received 10 thousand dollars and a chance to play again for 200 thousand dollars. I got there by beating several thousand other players in a series of online tournaments. I placed third out of the six finalists at the table, so I walked away with nothing more than an all expense paid (and lavish) weekend in Los Angeles, not to mention the satisfaction of knowing my kids got to watch me on national TV.

Go Buckeyes!

Ode to Holiday Shopping, 2006

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:36:00 +0000

‘Twas the week before Christmas, and all through the city
Highways congested, tempers were tested; the sight wasn’t pretty

The stores opened early, and stayed open late
Registers rang, loudspeakers sang; as I tempted fate

I proceeded with caution, threading the aisles
Squeaking wheels, dubious deals; all the new styles

I grabbed toys for the boys, and a gift for my niece
Loaded my cart, doing my part; to help the Chinese

I rushed to the checkout, avoiding a wreck
Teeming masses, slow as molasses; all writing a check

After walking a mile, got it all in my car
Loaded for bear, gasping for air; I didn’t get far

After dodging and weaving, with skill and deft
Almost out, stuck en route; they’re all turning left!

Happy Holidays Everyone!

The secret world of file formats

Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:42:00 +0000

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.

Have you made your mistake today?

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:38:00 +0000

It may seem strange to some of you, but I consider myself an artist. Visual Studio is my canvas, and the keyboard is my paintbrush. This is why I wouldn’t survive in a stuffy corporate environment with committees, red tape, and politics. I’m a visionary, not a software engineer. I don’t like to plan every little detail; I’d rather start with a grand vision and just let the code go wherever my vision leads it.

I confess this can be both a strength and a weakness. For example, I’ll spend two weeks refactoring perfectly working code because I don’t think it’s elegant enough. On the other hand, aesthetic beauty of structure and architecture is every bit as important in software as it is in other fields. It’s just that the benefits are intangible and more difficult to quantify.

Perfectly working code, you say? I admit, that’s a bit of a rarity these days. It’s a rarity precisely because not many programmers consider programming as an art form. Real artists are never satisfied with their work; they never stop working toward absolute perfection of both form and function.

This leads me to my real point. I have a favorite saying, “Have you made your mistake today?” Ironically, perfection can only be achieved by making mistakes. If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not learning. If you’re not learning, you’re not taking any risks. If you’re not taking any risks, you’re achieving mediocrity at best. Learn to make mistakes gracefully. Enjoy your capacity to learn and evolve toward perfection, no matter what kind of art you create.

Teaching and learning at AU

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:44:00 +0000

This year I taught an ObjectARX class at AU. As usual, there wasn’t nearly enough time to cover all the things I wanted to cover. I’m still contemplating what I want to do differently next year in order to be able to spend more time on the subject without boring everybody to death.

Toot Sweet

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:41:00 +0000

The French expression tuit de suite pretty much sums up how I feel after every Autodesk University, and this year is no exception. So much gets crammed into one week, with barely any time to decompress or collect my thoughts, let alone catch up with all the latest gossip or relax with old friends.

ADW '98

Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

This year I'm breaking tradition to acknowledge the changes at this annual event. The venerable "Autodesk University" is now just one facet of the more inclusive "Autodesk Design World", or ADW for short. As usual, I'm compelled to record my adventures for posterity. Enjoy!

AU '97

Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

A last-minute substitution garnered me a place at AU '97 this year. I hadn't planned on making the trip, but I'm glad I did, now that it's behind me. Enjoy my ramblings.

Owen Wengerd, President
ManuSoft

My Diary

AU '96

Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

This year, I decided that Chicago was close enough to home to make the trip to AU. To defray expenses, I offered to teach a course on "Sheet Metal Flat Development with AutoCAD" (MCH021).

Owen Wengerd, President
ManuSoft