Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/06/30/10:19:54
On Jun 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> John Doty : In the name of a more open workflow I was advocating PCB
> changing/adding TSV as an accepted input format for the other
> attributes I was suggesting. The idea being to break out of the
> workflow issues you see in PCB.
>
Wouldn’t help in the least bit. The core issue with PCB is that it has no coherent model of what a PCB is: it’s just a grab bag of “features” with no foundation.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:35 +0200, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
>>> it would be nice if I could just draw the schematics, choose
>>> footprints for it, route the PCB, and send the Gerber files to the
>>> fab.
>>
>> Sure. I think that is the main reason that so many people (at least here
>> in Germany) are using Eagle. Eagle is not very powerful, not very easy
>> to use or beautiful, but has a large collection of trustful symbols and
>> footprint.
>>
>> For FOSS EDA situation is not that good. Some people may create some
>> symbols or footprints and maybe make them public available, but do not
>> care much about systematically naming or quality. There are a few
>> exceptions of course, Mr Luciano (name may be misspelled) tried to
>> create high quality PCB footprints, and some people at gedasymbols tried
>> it also. I am not sure if situation is really better for KiCAD. And
>> converters from commercial products like Eagle? I do not think that is
>> really legal and that commercial companies will like that.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Home
> http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
> Work
> http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
>
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -