Re: gEDA-user: Building geda under Windows

[Daniel Nilsson <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:29:19AM -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> *  You mention "make [gEDA] prettier and easier to use" as a goal.
> Can you cite two or three specific things which could be made easier
> to use, and would help gEDA make inroads with students?  That is, can
> you identify two or three things which students find as turn-offs in
> gEDA? If we have specific things to fix, we can address them pretty 
> quickly.  

Stuart,

I share the view of the list members that have talked about
integration. I get questions from hobbyists asking about the gEDA
quite often and them ask something along the lines "does it
work?".

I tell them my view which is basically this:

1. Yes, it works and I have produced boards successfully.

   - This validates that the tools are not toys and gets peoples
     attention.

2. Don't compare the tools to the tools we use at work, look at it for
   your intended purpuse instead.

   - This is since most of the people asking are co-workers that are
     used to the tools we use at work. There is no point in my mind
     comparing Cadence Concept to gschem for example, Concept is about
     as bad for a hobbyist that gschem would be for the designs we do
     at work. I certainly think that the gEDA can compete successfully
     against to lower end commercial tools though, but it should not
     attempt and nor can it compete against the high end tools.

3. The integration with PCB is somewhat painful.

   - I prefer to be honest on this point and it's really the only
     negative I bring up to people. Basically figuring out what to put
     in the footprint attribute of gschem is not easy, and that is for
     a multitude of reasons; Is there an existing footprint already
     that comes with PCB or do I need to create one ? Can i trusts the
     existing footprints to be correct ? What are the options for any
     given M4 macro ?
     
     I think just reading the current tutorial by Bill Wilson
     (excellent work by the way) also highlights that this is the soar
     spot currently for producing printed circuit boards with
     gEDA/PCB.

So what do I suggest ? I proposed a few months ago to try to share the
work of coming up with a "golden" documented library for
PCB. The website gedasymbols.org is definately is step in the right
direction, but I also think that a little effort on the software side
could go a long way here. How hard would it be to be able to browse
available footprints in gschem when I place a component in the
schematic ? Integration on this level would be really nice and I think
a large step in the right direction.

Thanks
-- 
Daniel Nilsson