We can discuss what I said to that extent of detail, but I see no point in it.
However, it doesn’t mean it isn’t fun to discuss it… so:
I’d like to have an air balloon, but I don’t have money or time for it, and what I need is a car.
So, there is a difference between needing and wanting.
Wanting to have the CHSPACE command is not the same as needing to have it.
What I need is to have a very basic CAD solution. NanoCAD is a very complete solution already, without CHSPACE but with everything else I need and much more.
I used to have Draftsight on my old computer running smoothly but it no longer works on my new one.
I could buy another software, even cheap, but it would be a waste of money as I don’t actually need it and my desire for it is not that much.
With the same money, depending on the place you live, you can do a lot.
However my team needs the CHSPACE command somewhere in the process. Now, my consultants work with AutoCAD as they feel they need it.
Even if I think, (from what I see from their drawings), that they would be better off with Drafsight or the software you suggested, because they are definetelly cheaper than ACAD and they do only very basic stuff, they already have the most complete solution available.
So, in my team, we have the needs covered, and I’m not going to create a lot more entropy by telling them about Draftsight or something else.
They can fillet, offset and draw the lines they need with it, and they have CHSPACE. We are happy.
We could be happier without the text entanglement caused by LO though…