We are shutting down Ondsel
The shutdown of Ondsel, a company built around improving the open‑source FreeCAD platform, highlights how hard it is for free engineering tools to compete with mature commercial CAD suites like SolidWorks and Fusion 360. Commenters praise Ondsel’s technical contributions—such as fixing longstanding FreeCAD issues and advancing assemblies—while noting that usability, reliability, and professional support still heavily favor proprietary tools, especially in high‑stakes engineering work. More broadly, the thread probes why open‑source desktop applications often lag in UX polish and industry adoption, and whether better funding, design leadership, or new business models could ever make an open‑source CAD tool a true peer to commercial offerings.
Reaction to Ondsel Shutdown
- Many express disappointment and gratitude; several had just started learning CAD with Ondsel and found it promising and productive.
- Some never heard of it despite actively wanting a FreeCAD-based commercial offering, suggesting limited reach/marketing.
- Consensus that Ondsel’s work “was worth a try” and left FreeCAD substantially better off, so the company’s closure isn’t seen as a failure in impact terms.
State of FreeCAD and Ondsel’s Impact
- FreeCAD 1.0 is widely described as a big improvement over earlier versions: better usability, partial sketches, more stability.
- Ondsel is credited with major technical contributions (e.g., topological naming fix, assembly workbench) and with imposing focus on a fragmented project.
- However, several still find FreeCAD “horrible” or far behind commercial tools (Solidworks, Fusion 360, Onshape, etc.), especially in UX consistency.
Why Commercial CAD/EDA Dominates
- Non-software engineers often prioritize reliability, support contracts, and risk reduction on high‑value projects over software freedom.
- Vendor lock‑in is reinforced through university deals, entrenched workflows, and supply‑chain interoperability requirements.
- License costs are small relative to engineering labor and scrap risk; management and clients sometimes mandate specific commercial tools.
UX and Governance Challenges in FOSS Tools
- Recurring theme: FOSS end‑user tools (FreeCAD, GIMP, many EDA suites) are “a bit crap” mainly in UX, not raw capability.
- UIs are often seen as implementation-driven, poorly discoverable, and hostile to non‑developer mental models.
- Designers report difficulty contributing: workflows don’t fit PR-driven processes; maintainers may dismiss UX work as “dumbing down.”
- Communities sometimes react badly to user complaints (“it’s free, fix it yourself”), which discourages adoption.
Where FOSS Succeeds / Fails Today
- Strong reliance on FOSS noted in many sciences and in infrastructure-like tools; less so in specialized CAD/EDA, FPGA, and simulation.
- FOSS is seen as safer against subscription “enshittification,” but commercial tools still win where features and certification matter.
Alternative Tools and Future Directions
- Other OSS CAD options discussed: SolveSpace (simple but limited), Dune3D (promising, cleaner UI), OpenSCAD/CadQuery (code‑driven but niche).
- Commercial/hobbyist options: Fusion 360, Solidworks for Makers, Solid Edge, Onshape, Alibre; trade‑offs around cost, cloud lock‑in, file ownership.
- Some are watching new efforts like Zoo/KittyCAD (code + mouse + AI, cloud kernel), though cloud dependence and lock‑in raise concern.
- Several argue that a Blender‑like success in parametric CAD is possible, but only with sustained funding, leadership, and real UX investment.