Re: gEDA-user: gEDA/gaf capabilities

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This can also be turned around. What are the rquirements that you have
for an eda tool set? 

I tend to list the weaknesses of geda/pcb from my perspective.

1) Lack of support for hierarchical buses.
2) pcb lacks buried, blind and micro vias.
3) no back annotation between pcb and gschem.

So for a large majority of pcb design, layout and manufacturing this
means geda/pcb is very capable. For a few complex applications geda/pcb
is lacking.

I don't comment on simulation as that isn't an area I spend much time
in.

Steve Meier


On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 09:58 -0500, Randall Nortman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:44:24AM -0500, eswint@xxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I am looking using gEDA/gaf for my own activities and ran across an archived
> > newsgroup exchange providing a critique of gEDA/gaf and a call for user input
> > on what's important to them.  Is there a gEDA/gaf page with a checklist of
> > capabilities, e.g. http://www.4pcb.com/index.php?load=content&page_id=46 ?
> 
> 
> I think it would be easier to list the things gEDA/gaf *can't* to than
> the things it can.  I have used it to make fairly complex multi-layout
> boards, and never come across something I really needed that it
> couldn't do.
> 
> The common complaint with the gEDA tools is that the learning curve is
> very, very steep.  There are a handful of tutorials out there, but
> even after you go through those you have a lot left to learn on your
> own (at least last time I checked, which was a couple of years ago).
> Also, the tools are being developed faster than the documentation can
> keep up in some cases.  Also, gEDA/gaf is a true example of a
> "TMTOWTDI" ("tim-tow-dee") design, which is an old Perl acronym
> meaning "there's more than one way to do it".  There are many ways to
> use gEDA/gaf, and there's never consensus on the "right" way.  So,
> you're left to make your own decisions, and in general you end up
> doing a lot of work yourself to get your whole workflow figured out.
> But once you invest that effort, the results are definitely worth it.
> 
> Another annoyance is the lack of good symbol/footprint libraries
> relative to commercial tools.  I end up making a lot of footprints
> myself, but again I have assembled a set of tools that automate that
> to a large extent, so it is not really a big deal.  (Manufacturers
> often make ready-made symbols and footprints available in the common
> proprietary formats -- I wonder if anybody has thought of making a
> converter so we could import these into gschem/pcb?)
> 
> 
> If you have some specific concerns about capabilities you need, ask
> and we'll tell you if it can be done with gEDA.
> 



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user