Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/26/13:54:10

X-Authentication-Warning: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113;
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820;
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTrHSzGDvGxpKxqWDXUy8NCwxW8NWT/2qQj4Kjjg+HpJmFf9LXkS2Y4dgsWKg2VIuq3vYyrwTe5jEyDJA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id o127mr27720187wmb.101.1453834438185;
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:53:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601180756390 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601260416150 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
<56A751EC DOT 8030402 AT iae DOT nl>
<20160126124701 DOT 0d061912c7e078ced9d4e6cb AT gmail DOT com>
<CANEvwqgs3YFnt7m8mA1DN6X2KdWbyr4zpXCVH321vDo1f7CyxA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<201601261804 DOT u0QI4KEQ009550 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:53:58 -0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] [pcb] poll: burried/blind vias vs. pcb and pcb-rnd
(How ?)
From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:04 AM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> In this day and age to say blind/buried vias are not needed is ridiculous.
>> The fact is ANY design that requires even one FPGA, custom ASIC or
>> medium to large BGA needs blind/buried vias.
>> This is factual and is easy vetted.
> If you can afford a custom ASIC, you can afford a top-end EDA package,
> and a FAB that supports high-end features.  Frankly, PCB is not a
> high-end package and custom ASIC users are not our target audience.
> I can't afford any of that tech.  Heck, I can barely afford 4-layer
> boards with 6/6 rules.  There's a huge community of designers that
> can't (or won't) afford high tech features in their boards.
> So you can say "this is factual" but it's not.  It may be a
> requirement for a subset of our potential user base, but it's not
> ridiculous to assume that many people just aren't going to use them.
> Until we decide to support that tech, we're simply targetting the
> "many people" who don't need them.

Extra layers are not that expensive and most boards that care about
density at all blind vias can make layout a lot easier even if they
aren't absolutely required.  It seems like the major missing feature
in pcb to me, and a pretty good guess that people would use them if
they were available.


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019