WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Depending on the cutter, if the cutter can handle something like RAW HPGL and just parse what it needs from that, don't actually need a plugin for that at all. Set it up as a generic printer in the OS (last time that I had used Windows, this was supported, it is support on Linux, I have no idea on Macs, while I have used Macs over the decades since back in the 80s, this type of mucking around was not apart of that) and "print" from the vector software of choice to the cutter. It just depends on if the cutter can handle that format or not. That actually would make some plugins not even necessary.
In general terms of companies strong arming things, I think things are up in the air, some companies sure may not do it and may actually do right by their customers. I'm just talking in general terms here. Part of this is that these are other people's tools. They are able to change how they conduct things. EULAs, changes to them etc are also being challenged right now (even retroactive changes, in other words, instead of being bound by the terms of the EULA that you agreed to when you got your software (and people agree to these terms just by installing said software), you are now bound to the EULA of the latest version, an agreement that you may not have made with the software version that you did get). Not in this industry, but it can definitely trickle down to this and others if it starts to get normalized.
What I really find funny though, talking about the aspects of software that isn't useful etc. Bare in mind, in most software(open, close, free, and/or costly out the ying-yang) there is a clause that says that the software may not be fit for a particular purpose and it is presented "as-is" in the disclaimer/warranty section (typically in that section anyway). I do believe that there is a caveat of things that may be explicitly stated elsewhere that may be covered, but I'm willing to bet that it's vague enough that there is plenty of wiggle room. Just keep that in mind with any software that one gets, regardless of what developmental method it has chosen.
Now this is just me ranting/speculating based on things that I'm seeing/reading etc, in my own non legal mind, so take it for what that is worth. I just know that all my tools have certain licenses and I have certain powers to do what I want with them. Or in some cases, it's tools that I have written myself. I do make concessions where I'm comfortable doing so, but I always do so with the thought of an escape plan, for lack of a better phrase. Ironically, as much as I love my tech, I'm glad that I can still do things traditionally, so unless they start leasing that type of tooling (which at this point, I wouldn't be surprised), I should be ok, but I digress.
One caveat there is that VMs still can react to the change in shared hardware (the hardware that is used to help boost the performance of VMs). Some changes may be slight enough not to trigger it, but there are times when a change could. Unless you are able to spoof very specific hardware in said VM, which would not be apart of the easy install of said VM.
Now, if one was to emulate, that could be something else, but the reason it would be a pro, would be it's con as the performance would be bunk as it would be all software based.
