Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/29/21:53:17
> Baloney. For example, for years I've been hearing that users want
> buried vias.
And we've been hearing that users want a way to manage components, a
better scripting language than guile, and a better way to handle
busses. A tool can be "fine" without supporting every feature under
the sun.
> Almost all of them do their drawing with gschem, but if you read
> this list, almost all of the trouble they have is with pcb.
Because drawing schematics is a simple process, whereas laying out a
circuit board is complex. And most of the trouble is in the
"betweens" - the transistor problem, back/forward annotation,
component databases, busses. Gschem is a tiny part of a large
toolkit, don't assume that because gschem "works" means that the rest
of the toolkit is problem-free.
> That makes no sense. Pcb is dependent on geda-gaf to be
> useful.
That makes no sense. PCB is older than gschem, it was useful before
geda even existed.
- Raw text -