X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:36:08 -0500
Message-Id: <201601261836.u0QIa8uQ010925@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20160126192939.62f7f158250f536a0a6ab1ae@gmail.com>
	(geda-user AT delorie DOT com)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] [pcb] poll: burried/blind vias vs. pcb and pcb-rnd
 (How ?)
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> <20160126192939 DOT 62f7f158250f536a0a6ab1ae AT gmail 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
Precedence: bulk


> I do not consider buried/blind via a very high-end feature.

None of the prototype offerings I use inclue b/b vias as options...
they're only included in much more expensive offerings.

> gschem attributes are not high-end yet very flexible.

Irrelevent.  Emacs is more flexible than gschem but I wouldn't want to
lay out a board with it.

> pcb have preconceptions about how a via/pin/pad look and allow only
> change of parameters.

PCB has a simplistic model of a board, which works well with a
simplistic FAB offering.  Changing that model is hard, no matter how
many times people tell us it's easy or desirable.