Mail Archives: geda-user/2013/01/17/11:43:42
On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> I understand that others may have a different view on this, but I
> think it's fair to say that there exists a number of people who happily
> use pcb as their layout tool of choice.
I would make this statement even stronger: there are people who are very passionate about pcb, finding it the best thing around. It's a lot like all the silly programming language wars. Use what fits your way of thinking, but don't force it on others, or mislead them into believing they don't have choices.
>
>>> If the first thing we tell them is to find some other software
>>> package to get their job done, we are doing ourselves a huge
>>> disservice.
>>
>> If the first impression that they get is that they must use something
>> that they are likely to find unusable, we do both them and ourselves a
>> huge disservice.
>>
>> If we downplay gEDA's unique strengths, particularly its ability to
>> export designs to most common layout and simulation systems, we do
>> both them and ourselves a huge disservice.
>>
> I didn't mention the fact that gEDA can target multiple downstream tools
> as I wanted to present a simple interface, which appears to be what
> my audience expects.
Yes. But how many of them will then be put off by the fact that they find pcb incomprehensible?
> That being said, I can add a bit to the README
> mentioning the existence of other tools this would help.
>
> Out of curiosity, what is your preferred layout tool?
I don't do layout. My customers have layout people or contractors. But, if I had to, I think I'd choose Osmond PCB. That's what the MIT CCD lab uses, and they seem to have the quickest turnaround and fewest problems. My only experience with it has been to write a gnetlist back end, but that made me appreciate how simple and well documented its netlist format is. Clean file formats are always a good sign, I think.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -