Author Topic: Enterprise Architect Comunity Edition (Read 10309 times)

mago · « **on:** September 27, 2002, 10:46:52 am »

I´ve recently avaliate Enterprise Archtect and I like it very much!
I´m envolved now with an Open Source to implement and
Object Relational Mapping to Microsfot.NET and realy want to
now if Sparx System intend have an comunity edition of
Enterprise Architect!!!
I´m see Comunity Edition versions of ther tools but the diagrasm are so agly and I loved to use Enterprise Architect.
It culd have just Diagrams and Export it as image for documentation use!!!

mago · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2002, 10:48:26 am »

I Mean ugly !!!

jaimeglz · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2002, 02:18:14 pm »

Hi Mago!

I'm not familiar with what a "Community edition" is (as a matter of fact, I'm not familiar with .NET). But if what your are asking is whether EA can be used in a networked environment the answer is definitely yes. I'll just recommend you to search the forum on networking issues, because you do have to take some precautions.

Jaime Gonzalez

sbaishya · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2002, 05:19:40 am »

I think what Mago is referring to is a free version of EA with reduced functionality. The idea is to allow people to make use of the tool, even if they can't justify paying for the full version. The benefit is that a lot of users will probably extend their use of UML over time, realise they need the full version and purchase it.

This model is employed by quite a few vendors such as Sun (Sun ONE Studio - Java development tool) and Gentleware (Poseidon - UML CASE tool), and seems to be quite effective.

In the case of EA, it could perhaps be a case of extending EALite to have minimal diagram creation facilities, eg just Use Case and Class diagrams...

Steve_Straley · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2002, 07:51:00 am »

Hi,

FWIW, the "lite" edition makes sense in my opinion only if the base product is expensive and needs something of that sort to lure prospective buyers. But if I'm not mistaken, there is a 30-day grace period with full functionality AND at EA's price point, I don't really see the need for Geoff and Paul to spend additional cycles for this initiative. Again, that's only my .02 worth but at < $ 150.00 as opposed to > $ 4,000.00, it seems to be "lite" enough.

<lol>

Steve

mago · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2002, 03:24:33 pm »

Stephen Baishya is right in his answer. There is more one thing to say an comunity edition normally is for non comertial use and is so culd be adopted for non open source "comity".
About Steve Straley answer I had a lot of experience using Rational Rose in my work and the first contact with Enterprise Architect was because I was looking for an Tool to use in my company and I agree with you that $150.00 (R$ 580,02 2 1/2
minimal salary in my poor Brazil country) is a very just price and I even had done some sugestions to improve the version that I avaliate to sparks.
The problem with open source is that you can´t force other members to bye a tool and If I culd I´d realy suggest it couse I thing that It culd be very useful !

mago · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2002, 03:25:56 pm »

I mean open source "comunity"

Urmo · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2002, 11:22:53 pm »

There is really no point of having community edition of 150$ software. It is already very cheap by every standard. And modeling software should be cheap. Cheap, non-bloated and visually appealing

mbc · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2002, 02:01:47 am »

I agree 100% with Urmo. The Professional version of EA is outrageously cheap compared to a product like Rose. The Desktop version is even cheaper.
This is a price that every single user of the software should be able (and willing) to pay. It wouldn't even be fair to use it non-commercially with out contributing by registering.
There are some (crappy) open-source tools out there. They are free, and also full of bugs and missing features. ArgoUML is one of them. If you want a usable tool, pay the developers. In this unique case, you will even get an excellent tool at a shareware-like price.

Mikkel

Steve_Straley · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2002, 08:03:27 am »

Urmo, Mikkel,

That was exactly the point I was trying to make; thanks!

The irony is, for example, that for the same price of EA, you can purchase an "educational" copy of Visual Studio which retails multitudes more. I don't see the need, applying the same rations here to EA, that a "lite" version is necessary or required.

As far as the "open source community" spin goes, I see no coorelation to EA. Open Source is great but you get what you pay for. The amount of programming cycles just to keep up with patches, improvements, and relative coorelation back to your own versions make the concept of "free"... NOT so "free". We are actually in the middle re-evaluating GNU stuff for this reason and considering replacing it with the .NET strategy. But again, I don't think this really ties that closely with the concept of EA's price point and the "need" for a 'litel version.

Just a thought....

Steve

Wolfram Rittmeyer · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2002, 05:12:30 am »

Steve and Mikkel,

I agree with you about EA being cheap and that we should pay for it (which I did for another year just recently). It is a great tool and the developers do integrate a lot of features. Great.

Where I strongly disagree is your opinion about Open Source. Yes, tere does not seem to be any really useful OS-tool for UML out there. That's true (at least I haven't seen one yet and Argo is far beyond usable)! But: There are so much very good OS tools and programs available. Of course Linux and Apache are the probably best known ones. Other great tools are available like all the GNU tools for UNIX. Or PHP is - as far as I know - also a Open Source product.

And free is still meant in the meaning of freedom not of free of charge. Therefore, mikkel, your comment about "free" totally misses the meaning of "free" in "Free Software". You should read Stallmans comments about the issue of freedom in software.

OS is not always the best choice but it is ssimply not true that you always "just" get what you pay for (neither true with OS nor with EA).

Greetings,

Wolfram

Steve_Straley · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2002, 07:20:07 am »

Wolfram,

I agree with your comments above. Just wanted to add a new perspective I'm developing using GNU-based software. FREE is a very relative term and too often we think in terms of the "immedacy" and not the "long term". For example, while Castor-JDO was "free", the number of programming man-hour cycles to fix things in it, keep up to date with others in relating the fixes, and making the software work with other pieces in our infrastrcuture MEANT that what was initially purchased as "free" ended up costing quite a bit.

This brings up an interesting side debate I'm having with myself: to stay Java based and GNU centric OR to move to C# and .NET. For $2000 I can get a universal MSDN subscription and the entire .NET framework and IDE and classes and more, all integrated and ready for use. The initial up-front cost is MORE than "free" but the back in benefit appears (and I say that loosely at this point) to be exponential.

I guess the point is the power of GNU from my experiences appears to be in the willingness to back end costs as opposed to up-front costs.

Just another perspective....

Steve

mbc · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2002, 10:25:14 am »

Wolfram, just a quick reply. My use of the word "free" was in reference to the original poster in this thread, who talked about the cost of the software. My references to open source tools were directed at CASE tools specifically.
I am not going to make any attempt to enter a discussion on "Free software" vs. "commercial software" in this forum (or anywhere else), because that is sort of a religious topic more than one which can be discussed objectively.

Mikkel

Sparx Systems Forum

News: