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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user