Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 10:04 AM, John Griessen wrote: So, by using .NET you put users of your compilation in an upgrade treadmill to the benefit of Microsoft. Nonsense. This version gives the ability to run gEDA to users of certain Windows versions who couldn't use it before. And when their computers get old, hopefully they'll install linux on them (and keep running gEDA)-- actually upgrade them rather than replace them. Does it work for absolutely everyone? No, but that wasn't in the scope of the project. (And, if your computer is old enough that M$ doesn't support you, Linux and gEDA are still here for you.) On Sep 19, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chris Malton wrote: What've I broken in building it this way? Do let me know. Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful contribution to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you! - Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Chris Malton wrote: Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? Not quite; be sure that *anyone can get* the exact sources -- be sure to identify and link to the sources that you used, and upload any scripts and source contributions of your own. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Are you trying to tell me that I need to upload the unmodified sources for gEDA, pcb, Cygwin and co? Did you read the license terms for all those packages before distributing binaries built from them? For gEDA and PCB, that's exactly what you have to do. I suppose technically this is correct. However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...]. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:25 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: However, you *can* also simply link to your sources, provided that you also accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...]. Hard to include a *written* offer over the web. Written here implies legally binding. [citation needed] So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding?Your troll-fu is weak. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, John Griessen wrote: On 09/19/2010 01:33 PM, Windell H. Oskay wrote: Nothing. Disregard the haters. You've made a genuine and useful contribution to the gEDA ecosystem-- Nice work, and thank you! Haters? I was just asking about how universal or not .NET was, and got an answer that 2.0 .NET does not create lock in. If you could'nt talk about lock in vs. open software licenses on the gEDA list I don't know what you could talk about. Very sorry-- I apologize; I did not mean to be labeling you as a hater -- I should have said naysayers or something else less negative. You're absolutely right that we should be able to discuss this kind of thing here. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:42 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: So... a copy of the GPL on the web is not legally binding? The GNU General Public License is a one-sided grant of rights, not a contract, it is *NOT* legally binding and need not be. However, if you *choose* to not accept its terms, the US Copyright Laws take full effect, and your right to distribute is revoked completely. Thus, the binding is entirely on the recipient's side. The written offer in 3B needs to be binding on the *distributor's* side. Can you actually cite any example from GNU or elsewhere, saying that a written offer to include source code is not sufficient if it's online? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Your troll-fu is weak. Not trolling at all. I've been discussing the GNU GPL officially, publically, and otherwise for the last 20 years or so - as part of DJGPP and Cygwin, as a Cygnus/Red Hat employee, and now as part of gEDA/PCB. Some of the wording in COPYINGv2 exists because of my discussions with Stallman about how COPYINGv1 interacted badly with DJGPP (a GNU distribution), and I've had many talks with him and the FSF about the intricacies of the GPL and how it's interpreted. Okay. You can name-drop Stallman. Your troll-fu is pretty strong actually. I stand corrected. But citation still needed, or it *is* trolling. You are expressing a possibly inflammatory opinion without evidence to back it up. Doesn't that fit the definition? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ) On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:56 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: The internet is not the only thing in the world. Try asking a lawyer for advice instead. I can only give you my opinion based on years of experience and personal discussions with the FSF. You are expressing great confidence in an opinion that is-- as far as I can see --contrary to the way that this section is normally explained. Do you really want to justify this both by saying that (1) I should submit to your authority since you discuss things like this with Stallman and (2) it's just the internet, go ask a lawyer? It sounds like you're actually unsure of your position too. The GPL Violations FAQ for vendors ( http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html ) lists common mistakes in distributions, including Only including a download link to the source code, rather than a written offer to ship the source code on a physical storage medium customarily used for information interchange. I would think that if only including a written offer online were a problem, that would be listed here, as at least as large of a common mistake as not making the offer. At gnu.org, on the page about checking for license violations ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html ) lists among things to check for in a potential license violation, Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just binaries? No indication is made to distinguish between a downloaded offer/distribution and one obtained on physical media. When the FSF checks for violations ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance ), they check the pages where software is distributed, and they also check the surrounding web pages (to make sure that the source isn't distributed elsewhere on the site, and there's no written offer). Why would they say this if a written offer online were insufficient? If you can figure out a secure legally binding DATED way to make that offer online, and not get screwed by someone who edited the file to change the date ten years down the line, and have it all hold up in court, go for it. If it comes down to someone suing you in court, then hopefully you can find several witnesses who can each attest that they used this version of the software back in 2010. There's more to do in court than parse text files. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Bob Paddock wrote: If you go the written offer route there are several ways that can make you go broke. A million people make the request. Same person makes the request every day etc. Interesting thought. I'd guess that this is why the license allows you to charge for source code mailings and cover your costs. Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code is a 34 volume set, always a fun read... I'm afraid that I haven't had the pleasure. ;) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Portable gEDA for Windows
On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:18 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: No citation is needed - the GPL is a legal document. Bring it to a lawyer if you want a legal opinion. You should never rely on the Internet for legal advice. All we can give you are opinions. Even a *lawyer* on the Internet can only give opinions - they need to know the specifics of your case to give legal advice. As soon as you start yelling for proof, I'm stepping away from it. I'm not a lawyer. You want proof, you need a lawyer. I did not ask for advice or a legal opinion; you expressed one. I only asked you to justify it. You've expressed an opinion that's in contrast to the common how to use the GPL pages. If your opinion is now the party line as it were, it would behoove you to have the various FAQs updated to reflect this. You won't find many people more strongly in favor of OSS (and OSHW) than me. But in that context, I must say that you are you are making a strong argument against the use of open source licensing. Anyone can write software of their own and publish it under copyright protection, for whatever that's worth. But if all that anyone can say about the GPL is consult a lawyer if you actually want to use this, it *really* doesn't help us. I don't know of *any* case where 3b was used, ever. That doesn't mean that it doesn't count. It *has* been used, and much more often than you think. And, you've essentially made the claim that everyone who uses it with online distribution is in violation of the GPL. That's a serious accusation; I don't think that I was remotely out of line to suggest that there should be some justification for it. You have to find witnesses who can attest that the software was NOT made available on the date in question. Very hard to prove a negative. I never suggested that anyone prove a negative. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: OT: Electronic simulation with geda (in 1953)
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2010/08/04/shortest-way-to-the-moon/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Andrew Poelstra wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:20:52PM -0400, Matthew Sager wrote: [*] We need a better term for drawing layers, since layer means something specific in PCB design. Or another name for physical layers. Or something ;-) How about overlay? Canvas comes to mind. It hints that you draw on it. Or this could just be the fact that I have a painting that I need to finish. Canvas sounds good to me, too. Overlay feels like a more circuity word, but either one would be fine by me. Another good metaphor might be that of the Cel, from hand-drawn animation: A stack of cels makes up a layer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cel ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
I like canvas - it's a more popular idiom than cel. Indeed it is. My concern about canvas is that it does not convey a relationship to our physical layers. In some cases it would be reasonable to expect a canvas to refer a full layer or even to a stack of layers. IMHO, it would be beneficial if the term chosen connotates sublayer rather than layer or stack of layers. Another couple of suggestions: - Sublayer It's straightforward - Sheet A common metaphor in engineering-- it would make sense if there were multiple sheets to specify the details of each physical layer. Anti-copper sheet, digital keep-out sheet, anti-mask sheet, etc. This name would lend itself naturally to printed documentation for a project. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
On Sep 13, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Ouabache Designworks wrote: On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:08:25PM -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote: XML is far too heavy, agreed, and it's signal-to-noise ratio is abysmal. True on both counts and you would never want to handcraft a xml document. Why? I'd much rather handwrite XML than YAML. And I'd certainly prefer it to the existing file formats, which I can barely edit without looking up the meaning of each position. I'm not sure that I see a good reason for the hatred of XML. I've never found the size of Inkscape documents to be absurd, for example, and the fact that python and other languages can manipulate it so easily is definitely a plus. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, John Doty wrote: The gschem format is as expressive as HTML, but having the braces stand alone on separate lines makes the structure easier to parse with simple tools. Simple is good. Your definition of simple is (as usual) very different from mine. http://avdi.org/devblog/2009/10/29/simplicity-is-complicated/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
But that is exactly what others have been saying, they are concerned about the file size they think they would get from XML... I want to run PCB on my iPad, etc. File size just means a bigger file to generate/parse. Doesn't affect RAM use significantly, which is the major limit for small devices. This year's iPad has 16 GB flash, minimum. Suppose that someone ports PCB to iOS while they still make a 16 GB model (oh-so-likely) and that it were allowed in the iTunes app store while containing GPL code (wanna buy a bridge?). Further suppose that there's a 10X file-size penalty for using XML. Let's call the file size a PITA if it reached (say) 10% of that, 1.6 GB. (Can you even buy a USB drive that small anymore?) So, the questions: Who here generates PCB files as large as 160 MB on a regular basis? And, if you answered me, is this type of design one that you'd prefer to edit on a small screen? Seriously. Does anyone actually think that XML would make a non-negligible difference one way or another about whether you could run PCB on any forthcoming iXYZDroidBerry? This argument fails the common sense test. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
Sorry, I was not able to follow the whole discussion, but I do not like your arguments too much. XML may be fine -- if it has big benefits, that may be much more important than size. I don't care about XML one way or the other, I was pointing out that the argument presented against it was slightly disingenuous. I have seen people asking for help in internet forums -- they posted a JPEG screenshot of a short computer error message -- 50 kByte for 50 Byte of text. They do not care... Your example is at least two orders of magnitude out of proportion. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
You can't easily parse it with simple tools like awk or sed. That's a fact. No, it's not a fact. It's actually just you expressing your opinion that awk and sed are simple tools. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
I call the second large, bloat, and ugly. 98 chars vs 134 or 36% bigger for a pin with these mythical formats. You're making my point. 36% is way under the 900% that I budgeted to show that it still isn't a big deal in terms of file size-- absolutely negligible in determining how portable the code is. There are plenty of good arguments for and against XML. I don't think that file size is one of them. I say no to raw XML as making out own format, but would use SVG with extra info embedded. This way our drawings would work in all modern web browsers, we get all of the primitives we would ever want, including fancy curves, built in layers and more.. Interesting idea. Could preview footprints *natively* at gedasymbols. It *would* be pretty awesome to be able to use SVG graphics for silk layers. Fancy curves might work well for future routers as well. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
On Sep 12, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Bob Paddock wrote: Well, a both-sides silkscreen layer makes little sense. Actually it does make sense. Think about a transformer with through-hole pins. You want the top silk to show the courtyard, for clearances. You want the bottom silk to show the pin numbers/labels. +10. Obvious, important feature. Most of my boards have silkscreen on both sides. Every major fab shop supports it. We should too. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Unusual uses of gEDA...
My latest project has five PCBs designed in gEDA/PCB. One of those oddball projects that uses PCB layout but no gschem or gnetlist. No netlist at all, in fact. http://www.evilmadscientist.com/go/eggbot A tricky part of this was the mask keepout on two of the boards-- I ended up drawing a separate layer for mask, and using it instead of the standard mask gerber. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Unusual uses of gEDA...
On Sep 10, 2010, at 8:28 AM, John Griessen wrote: The black on white rules and logo look great Windell. I like the idea of an engraver for it -- then it could do promotional doo-dads and trophies for club events... The engraver is pretty neat-- it can make, for example, etched glass christmas ornaments. Here's one that we made at MakerFaire Detroit: [1]http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenore-m/4856324866/in/photostream/ The photo shows a dull-silver-painted glass ornament, engraved down to etched glass, and lit from within by a multicolor LED. I'm not sure that it's precise enough for trophies, but I bet there will be a lot of ornaments sent to gramma. :) I don't see any big unprinted areas In this photo, you can see a big square on the lower left piece and a big rectangle on the second piece from the top: [2]http://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/4970320961/ If you look closely, you'll see that those two areas are not black ink but are silver colored: those are large mask-free areas that are HASL finished. The motors screw down to those two locations-- one fixed, the other slotted so that it can go to different positions . Without the mask, there's a good metal-to-metal thermal connection between the motor and the top copper. Those two boards have a copper flood going all the way to 20 mil from the board edges, which acts as a surprisingly effective heat sink for the motors. Was the printing done as white soldermask and black silk layer? On FR-4, acrylic? The board material looks almost clear. Yes, it's white mask and black silk on 100 mil FR-4. There's actually printing on both sides, so you'd see some of that if it were clear. The white mask is quite opaque. You can see the board edges somewhat in this photo, where the FR-4 has its usual translucency: [3]http://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/4970933180/in/photostream/ We did some of our mechanical prototyping in 3 mm laser-cut acrylic. It's almost shocking how much stronger the FR-4 is. References 1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenore-m/4856324866/in/photostream/ 2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/4970320961/ 3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/4970933180/in/photostream/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Unusual uses of gEDA...
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:10 AM, John Griessen wrote: So, if the engraver vibration is too fuzzy, how about adding force feedback control and a rotary tool? The force feedback would let you hold up the weight of the rotary tool, and probably help pickup and touch down at the same spots too. Does the eibot board have some spare inputs for feedback? Interesting idea. We have used rotary tools with success, but they cost *a lot more,* and they're bulky and weigh a lot-- a little challenging for our motors without careful balance. The nicest results were with an air-powered dental drill. Adding force feedback would be possible, but also adds cost. Probably the best way to improve precision is just to increase the stiffness of the flexure hinge, meaning that there's less motion in undesirable degrees of freedom. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:31:48AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: PS.. have you tried any of the GL stuff? http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/trans_poly.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-1.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-2.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-3.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-4.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-5.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-6.png http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/pcb+gl_3d/pcb+gl_3d-7.png Wow. These screenshots are incredible. Please excuse my naive question, but is this something that the rest of us can expect to see in PCB someday? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
The conductors may not be copper. I've even worked with a board that had two different conductive materials on the same physical layer. Interesting case. Let's suppose that you have conductors -- say niobium and copper -- on the same physical layer. Does that have implications for PCB? I'm not certain that I see any. I'd imagine that you ultimately need to generate separate gerber files for the two separate conductors. That means putting them on separate layers in PCB (or, I suppose, major architecture changes). If that was an inner layer, you could lay it out as two separate inner layers and that would work, so far as I can see. If the two conductors are both on the top outer layer, I believe that you could use the same strategy, defining both to be in the same component side layer group. Am I missing something? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
I tried to use the 3D view for regular work a few moths ago (medium density, 4-layer, analog layout). Turns out, it makes routing/placing more confusing than pure 2D vertical view. It is difficult to tell the distance of objects on different layers. After all, the physical screen is 2D an the layout problem is almost 2D. I'd certainly advocate 2D routing and placement. I do see two key reasons to include this function, though. 3D seems like a *very* useful addition for inspection and review prior to taping out. (I already like the transparency in gerbv.) Second, it makes for excellent screenshots which can attract new users to gEDA. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0
On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:01 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: * Real layer types. Silks, keepouts, docs at least. Maybe anti-draw or paste. How about mask keepout layers? I have to manually merge gerbers to get my negative-tone unmasked regions now. This would be *huge*. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB format wishlist
On Sep 6, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Andrew Poelstra wrote: Sounds good. But I'm worried that by dropping down to basically a vector drawing, we're going too far. However, given that any decent file format will let us create PCB objects from geometric shapes, perhaps this is an unjustified fear. Might look at Inkscape for some inspiration in that department if you're really not afraid. It's excellent open source software for vector drawing. Very good UI. XML-based open file format. Does arcs, layers, lines, groups, polygons, etc. No DRC, though. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
On Sep 4, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Ineiev wrote: Hello, DJ; On 9/4/10, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote: Our DRC engine could use a complete rewrite. It doesn't get arcs right, for example. Could you elaborate on the arcs, please? what it doesn't do? I've been running into trouble with the DRC and arcs, myself. I discovered it when doing some simple tests of the toporouter-- certain arcs produce DRC errors when there clearly is none-- says that there isn't 10 mils of clearance when there obviously is much more than that. Here's a minimal test case that demonstrates the errors: http://evilmadscientist/source/temp/topo_puzzle.pcb ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
On Sep 4, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Ineiev wrote: Hello, DJ; On 9/4/10, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote: Our DRC engine could use a complete rewrite. It doesn't get arcs right, for example. Could you elaborate on the arcs, please? what it doesn't do? I've been running into trouble with the DRC and arcs, myself. I discovered it when doing some simple tests of the toporouter-- certain arcs produce DRC errors when there clearly is none-- says that there isn't 10 mils of clearance when there obviously is much more than that. Doh! Bad link. Correct one is: http://evilmadscientist.com/source/temp/topo_puzzle.pcb ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Honey, I shrunk the schematic
In gschem you are not even bound to nudges. My default title block is deliberately just that -- a title block with no fixed frame. http://www.gedasymbols.org/user/kai_martin_knaak/symbols/titleblock/title-block.sym If I want a frame for printing, I just draw a rectangle that fits the schematic. Thanks-- that's an awesome tip! (Should go in an FAQ, somewhere.) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gsch2pcb and pcb, paths to footprints
On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:07 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: Or File-Import from within PCB. I really would like people to get used to the idea of trying File-Import *before* resorting to gsch2pcb. I went through all that effort to replace gsch2pcb with something more user-friendly, and nobody's using it... I'll be very happy to use it once it's there-- it *was not* there as of the most recent snapshot. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)
On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: On 7/14/10 10:51 PM, timecop wrote: I think that the proper place to resolve this issue is in the actual *licenses,* which as with OSS may vary from permissive to restrictive. I'd like to see the evolution of at least one OSHW license where a requirement is that the design files for the project-- and its derivative works --need to be in open, documented formats. Keep dreaming, bro. Maybe when gEDA reaches 1/10th the functionality/usability of say Protel. While it's nice to know that your full-of-yourselfness extends to gEDA, it's not the only game in town, and it's not even the only open source EDA with open file formats. This will happen whether or not gEDA evolves, and whether or not gEDA is involved. Damn, and here I was hoping he had unsubscribed. +1 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Use of Alt+Mouse1 (was: Next problem, PCB looses rats)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:22 PM, timecop wrote: Maybe it's time to travel into 2010. On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:51 AM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote: Ok, then. Let's take the key with the windows logo, or AltGr, or the key with the menu to the right of the right windows key. :-) My keyboard doesn't have any of those keys... Mine doesn't have any either, and it was made this year. Your point? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
On May 7, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Felipe De la Puente Christen wrote: I think there's not much to do to implement the service. In fact the service is already there, what's lacking is a proper interface to let 3rd party software get the search results without accesing the website through a browser. It could even be there already in the case of digikey, but I'm not that familiar with these search-bar plugins, and haven't had the time to check the code(?) for info to implement the searches. Interesting. I wonder how third-part component search services (like findchips.com and octopart) presently search the distributors. Does anyone know? There must be some sort of API that the distributors are providing them, at least privately. Windell H. Oskay ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
No, it is about polluting good engineering with sloppiness. Aye. To wit: You've been polluting what could otherwise be a good forum for engineering discussion with seriously sloppy social engineering. As a non-contributer, you ask for changes whose consequences you do not understand. I have not asked for ANY changes except in your behavior. Do you *really* think that there would be dire consequences for gEDA if you were to argue the exact same things except *politely*? (And, thank you for labeling me a non-contributer -- I'll be sure and keep my place rather than contributing. Helpful indeed.) It's a *consequence* of your position. If you travel the road to Hell, you'll wind up in Hell, even if you're not arguing that Hell is where you want to go. My contention that it's reasonable *to discuss* databases necessarily leads to Hell? Wow-- your church is much more strict than mine. Perhaps my memory is limited, but the only workable flow that I can recall you acknowledging is your own. Which flow? I have a different one for each project. Again, good engineering allows the ends to dictate the means. The genius of gEDA is that its flexibility supports this. Your own, i.e., whichever one you're working on. I never even implied that you had a single inflexible flow-- I said quite the opposite, in fact. I'm sorry your thin skin has forced you to bash me. This is about EDA, not about personality. I have a thick skin. That's why I stepped into the conversation in the first place: to call you out when you almost sequentially posted four uncalled for, almost bullying messages to other members of the list. I've done so before, and if you can't keep it civil, I *will* call you out on it again-- whether or not I agree with you about the EDA portion of the discussion. You personally directed the discussion from one about engineering to one about personality when you switched from criticizing ideas to insulting the people who made them. This conversation is the natural consequence. Of course. Didn't I just yesterday praise Edward's work, and offer a solution to one of his problems? Didn't I suggest plug-ins to gnetlist as a another possible approach? But my notion of a database is different from yours (and actually achievable): a project-specific mapping of schematic symbols to physical components. You have been helpful at times; I went out of my way to acknowledge that already. But that doesn't give you license to bully people the rest of the time. (Actually, you can be mean to people all you like; you'll just get into another one of these very unproductive conversations as a consequence.) Besides gEDA, I also use a commercial (, not $) EDA system with a database where many standard parts can be pulled off the shelf as it were, with symbol and footprint. Yeah, I still spend a lot of time drawing and modifying footprints and so forth, but the database does save me a huge amount of time. Approaches like this are neither foolproof nor un-achievable. No it is not. Engineering is about *consequences*. You really think that insulting community members without provocation has no consequences? That's sloppy engineering. Engineering is about consequences. A consequence of your plan is that gEDA becomes more toy-like, regardless of how you wish to describe it. No. My plan is that we can have civil conversations about the future of gEDA on this mailing list, regardless of how you wish to describe it. How you get from that to toy-like is beyond me. Delusions are common in engineering, even for perfectly sane engineers. If you can't have bad ideas, you won't have good ones either. That's why designs need review. It's also why you shouldn't be so emotionally invested in your ideas that you're personally insulted by criticism of them. I haven't been insulted at all by your engineering arguments, nor by your criticism of any proposals about gEDA. I'm really not sure what orifice you're pulling all this out of. (You keep making strange assumptions about my position. As I've said before, I mostly agree with you on matters of engineering.) However, I *am* invested in gEDA and the health of the community, which is why I stepped into this in the first place. If you feel a need to insult someone, you can continue to do so to me rather than to the rest of the community. That's life for a scientist. You need a thick skin. I am a scientist and I have a thick skin. Maybe you should pay attention. No, you're selling an approach that will damage the toolkit. I ain't buying. I guess to a salesman, that counts as an insult. I'm sorry you're so invested in your ideas that you consider criticism of them a personal insult. If you're going to have ideas, you'd better get used to criticism of them. My assertion that you should stop behaving like a jerk = Damage will occur to the toolkit? Really? Come off of it already: I'm not trying to sell you on any position
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
John, I said a number of nice things about you and asked that you stop being mean to people. That's hardly abominable. If you'd like to keep the discussion to EDA, that pleases me greatly. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
Too large ever to assemble. Right. Your suggestion is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON should build a full separate heavy symbol library for EVERY SINGLE PROJECT, and yet a single community-built database is too large of a concept to even consider. Rght. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. But don't pollute the toolkit with functions that [...] You don't understand that [...] Perhaps to those of us with EDA experience [...] To everyone else-- including those with EDA experince --having a set of symbols to start with and customize is a known and effective solution. Your insults don't change the fact that something that adds great value to 90% of users without removing functionality is a net gain. But we know you're not interested in solutions. Obviously. Because nobody but you understands the problems. We're all too stupid to understand and believe in your one true completely-adaptable-to-everything workflow as the solution to everything. You've made it perfectly clear time and again that you're opposed to new features just on the basis that (to paraphrase), features are bad. Fine-- you're absolutely welcome to your opinion. Here's my opinion: you should recompile your gEDA programs with all of code commented out. As the limit of features goes to zero, you can finally have your perfect EDA suite-- perfectly scriptable and 100% flexible. The perfect toolkit. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
A community database would need trillions of symbols when the combinatoric possibilities are considered. Now how big is the community that's contributing? There are 41 contributors to gedasymbols. They have contributed 1392 symbols. That's a measure of the capacity of this community. Now, I'm not disparaging that effort, and indeed I will continue to contribute to it and exploit it. How about you? But I have no illusions that this will solve the whining about symbols, even if we could enlist every EE in the entire world to contribute. Nobody but you is claiming that we need trillions of symbols nor all the EEs in the world. Straw man much?) Instead, please consider: If it becomes easier to produce and use useful symbols, the number of users and the number of people likely to contribute useful symbols could grow very, very quickly. Telling people over and over again that they're idiots for wanting something like that will does just the opposite. It lead to a lower rate of symbol creation. And that's exactly what we have. But having a set of symbols for every likely use is impossible. Ditto for a database that represents their attributes (it's really the same thing, just packaged differently). Again, you're arguing against a position that nobody is arguing for. Nobody needs to build a filled database from scratch, nor does the database structure need to be perfect on the first version. Having *capacity* to introduce symbols and attributes for every likely use-- for 90% of people who are using gschem and/or PCB to build circuitry--is quite likely. And, it will grow the community, which will lead to increased availability of ready-made starter symbols. It will never be perfect or 100% inclusive, but that's hardly a reason to give up. For every corner case (plumbing, thermal simulations, VLSI, and who knows what) there's still scripting capacity. Your insults don't change the fact that something that adds great value to 90% of users without removing functionality is a net gain. But something that leads them down a dead end path is a loss. Your continued abusive behavior towards n00bz and veterans alike here is a damaging, dead end path that leads to loss for all of us. EDA is irrelevant to the problem. You misrepresent my position. In which way? You seemed to agree with the position that a blank canvas is better than the Mona Lisa. Have you changed your mind? I've contributed several gnetlist back ends to the project. And there are a couple of useful scripts in my gedasymbols area. But these actually work, and solve the problems I intended to solve with them. I acknowledge and appreciate your role as contributor to the project. I even saw that you were nice to someone on the list last week. (I was so surprised that I saved the message for future reference.) However your contributions do not compensate for nor justify your actions on this list. Perhaps you should also consider acknowledging and appreciating that people here discussing gEDA are also trying their best to contribute to the project. Cute features leading to dead ends (although unfortunately very common in modern software) are not an advance. Deciding in advance that every possible feature is a dead end or is just cute isn't helpful. Shooting them down without discussion necessarily prevents advances. I think that it's a very accurate description of your position to say that you're opposed to advances in gEDA. Can you really argue against that conclusion? I for one-- and I am not alone --have grave reservations about discussing gEDA features on this list. It's bound to be a dead-end path so long as you keep this up. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
On May 6, 2010, at 6:07 PM, John Doty wrote: Nobody else has really thought about the magnitude of the problem. I challenge you to make a list. You are changing the subject, yet again. This is about you, John. I encourage people to contribute to gedasymbols. Where is your contribution? Changing the subject, yet again. I have already acknowledged your contribution. I wouldn't in a million years expect you to acknowledge mine. Again, you're arguing against a position that nobody is arguing for. Not true. Really? Exactly *who* is arguing that we should have a built-in symbol for every possible use? It's clear enough that the only person arguing that is YOU, and you're only putting it out there to argue against it. Another classic straw man. If the database behind the GUI tool is inadequate, the GUI gets in the way. Users will have to get used to reaching around it anyway. That will drive away everyone who thinks it should actually work, while the few remaining will drop back to the workable flow, and the cute GUI feature will have only driven people away. You're making assumptions upon assumptions so that you can insult the result as unworkable. Not helpful. Perhaps my memory is limited, but the only workable flow that I can recall you acknowledging is your own. Everything else that all of us do is just a cute toy to you-- we get it. (Some of us use those cute toys to make a living, you know.) Here's my opinion, which I don't require anyone to share: gEDA is fundamentally a graphics suite-- for creating graphical data like schematics and circuitry --and it's actually okay for a graphics suite to have a GUI. And I would definitely *encourage* our community to be able to discuss things like this, out in the open, without all the bashing. This problem is already present in the component selection dialog in gschem. A *true* advance in gEDA would be to have this lead the user directly into the necessary customization, instead of promoting the illusion that this step isn't necessary. Sounds like there's a hint of a possibly useful idea in there. Would you consider maybe someday contributing *constructively* to the dialog? How about making suggestions about ways to do that, or steering the conversation that way, rather than just shooting down everything that comes by, whether or not you agree with it? Ah, but it does have to be perfect. Otherwise there will be lots of whining about what a piece of crap gEDA is. People won't be able to find their favorite component. People will design boards, fabricate them, and be shocked when pin numbers turn out to be wrong. Nice red herring. Whether or not the symbols are *wrong* is totally irrelevant to the existence of a database. You know perfectly well that goofs in pin numbers could happen in an otherwise ideally perfect database or without one at all, even now at gedasymbols.org. (I've been bitten by such things in other EDA systems; I know the pain.) Besides, people already complain about what a piece of crap gEDA is-- in large part because it doesn't have ways for people to find their favorite component.So...if *that* is our biggest worry, we've got *nothing* to lose. You have no comprehension of how far every likely use goes. gEDA isn't just a toy for hobbyists. Do you really feel like you're making valid argument by insulting me? You don't know my background, nor what I comprehend. The only one referring to gEDA as a toy is you, and that's not helpful either. Sure. Contribute your symbols to gedasymbols. I encourage this. But the delusion that this can somehow lead to a situation where a user can just pick a component from a menu without both careful checking and customization is damaging. Thank you for calling me delusional. That really helps move things along, doesn't it. Your continued abusive behavior towards n00bz and veterans alike here is a damaging, dead end path that leads to loss for all of us. EDA is irrelevant to the problem. Huh? EDA is what gEDA does! The ONLY problem that I've been trying to address here in the last few messages is your unnecessary and abusive behavior towards individuals on this mailing list.It's got to stop. No, EDA really hasn't got a damn thing to do with it. I would wish you could appreciate this, and adopt the Hippocratic principle: first, do no harm. Again, you have no idea what I do and don't like about gEDA, nor on my stance on what features do and don't belong in a particular program. You're making some pretty wild (and wrong) assumptions there. What's obvious is this: you are doing a great deal of harm to the community with these abusive messages. Perhaps you should you yourself consider adopting the Hippocratic principle with respect to the gEDA community. ___ geda-user mailing list
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: That was really uncalled for. Don't take it too hard; Most things that he posts to this list are uncalled for. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Matching footprints with symbols
The two projects are able to work together *because* they were intentionally designed with clean interfaces, and no unnecessary entanglements. You propose to throw away the very virtue that made the partnership possible in the first place. Some of us want to keep the tools open to other partnerships. John-- He was proposing no such thing and you know it perfectly well. You don't need to keep making up stuff like this. You have told us all *many* times how important it is that the gEDA suite is made up of independent toolkit programs that have clean interfaces, supporting all kinds of unique workflows. I think that there's a consensus here that this is a genuine strength of the gEDA suite. Yes, we agree with you. We also know that you personally have a special workflow, and *nobody* is trying to take that away from you. So far so good. But, maybe it's time that you face facts: 1.) Some of us think that it's actually okay to use gschem together in a workflow with pcb. 2.) Some of us think that it's okay to add additional, easy-to-use (and yes, integrated) interfaces so long as they don't interfere with existing scriptable command-line operation. I personally think that it's good (in general) to build the gEDA community. Starting people off with an example workflow (e.g., gschem to pcb) may be a good way to get them in the door-- so that they can start to see how they might instead design more unique workflows between the different programs. 3.) You're too late. There is already (more than one) existing integration between gschem and pcb. Fortunately, gsch2pcb is an independent program, so changes to it do not throw away the clean interfaces between the other programs, but instead makes use of it. On the one hand, you seem to value gEDA, its independence between programs, and the fact that anyone can write their own customized scripts to make an efficient custom workflow between the programs that they want to use. However if that's really the case, you should also understand that it's okay if people do exactly that, but with workflows that are different from your own. For example if people want to discuss modifications to gsch2pcb (or other programs that you don't use), the very least that you could do is stay out of it. It's not actually necessary for you to go out of your way to bash them. It gets old pretty quickly; please give it a rest. We mostly agree with you. It would nice if you agreed with you too. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Funny pad rotation
Yes, but that bug report came with a request explicitly asking that it not be fixed! Okay, yes it's amusing, but is there really a justifiable reason *not* to fix it? It's *not* expected behavior. It looks and feels and acts like a bug. I wasted quite a bit of time before thinking to ask the list for help. And, if I hadn't checked my gerbers carefully, I would have wasted several hundred or thousand dollars as well. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Funny pad rotation
I'm having an issue exporting my board from PCB as a gerber. Please take a look at this screenshot: http://flickr.com/gp/oskay/L98vvn The pads look normal-- square to the page --in PCB, but are rotated strangely when I export as gerber. The footprint, as it appears in my PCB document is: Element[ gullwing_opto IRD201 unknown 325000 262500 -7000 -17500 0 100 ] ( Pad[-6703 -1 -6700 1 4000 2000 5000 1 square] Pad[6700 1 6703 -1 4000 2000 5000 2 square] ElementLine [-3000 -8900 -3000 -6900 700] ElementLine [-3000 8900 -3000 6900 700] ElementLine [6700 -7900 6700 -4400 700] ElementLine [6700 7900 6700 4400 700] ElementLine [-6700 -7900 -6700 -4400 700] ElementLine [-6700 7900 -6700 4400 700] ElementLine [-6700 -7900 6700 -7900 700] ElementLine [-6700 7900 6700 7900 700] ElementArc [-3000 0 4000 4000 45 270 700] ) Is this a known bug? Any workaround? Thanks! -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Funny pad rotation
On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:19 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: That's really wierd. The exports are correct, the GUI is wrong - your footprint really does have oddly rotated pads: Pad[-6703 -1 -6700 1 ... That's a dX of 3 and a dY of 2. If you enable thindraw (the | key) it shows the correctly rotated outlines. Debugging... Wow-- yes-- you're right. It sure shows up in thindraw mode. Thanks! -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: toporouter update
I'm not going to stop working on the toporouter (greenlight?) just because Google didn't fund us. If people keep hassling me, I'll probably find the time for small commits here and there.. e.g., most of my work last year was an answer to some scathing criticism from Harry.. I *had* to do something after that =) Aside from hassling (hassle hassle hassle), please let us know what we can do to help out. I've shallower pockets than google, but perhaps some other folks here would also be willing to pitch in to help make it worth your while. ;) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Toporouter update?
Also, can anyone think of a new name for the toporouter? There is already a commercial tool called the 'toporouter', which I don't want us to be confused with. How about Awesomerouter? :D ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Toporouter update?
Haha nice.. I used to route boards by hand, but then I became awesome instead. True story. tea - keyboard I suggest it because (1) it's awesome and (2) it's suggestive of 'autorouter. Back on topic now, we might get some good hints for future features from Toporouter (the commercial autorouter product). One of the ones that they tout is understanding logical equivalence of certain pins. You could further imagine a very advanced version of this that could select which slot of (say) a quad op-amp to use. But, let me also voice that I'm 100% behind getting the basics working first. I would *love* to be able to use this for even single sided boards, today. Adding in existing geometry is key. Vias would be great, too. :) Honestly, optimization beyond what's already there would be great for a future version, but I'm so craving just what I've seen so far. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Fundung for server
As Ales has mentioned, its not the issue of finding money now.. its finding a continual source of money. Think more like charities that want a few £ or $ per month, not lump sum donations. Any reason not to consider a few ads as a long-term solution? Ads are a well-known, generally acceptable, and scalable method of supporting simple web sites. A few google text ads (for example) wouldn't be too obtrusive, and would probably generate more than enough funding per month-- lots of companies advertise about PCB services, and people learning about gEDA would be inclined to be receptive. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Funding for server
I find adverts generally annoying. That's fair enough. There are better alternatives than advertisements to get the website funded. Yes and no. I'm certainly willing to chip in, and so is my company. However, one-time contributions are things need to be negotiated or processed on a continuing basis. That takes person-effort that would (IMHO) better be spent elsewhere on the project. The reason that I brought up advertising is that it is an established model for *continuous* funding. And, the slippery slope is already there. As a whole, gEDA is already accepting advertising. Donors through linuxfund are listed; that's sponsorship, i.e. advertising. And there are ads on the github and sourceforge pages (only, the money goes elsewhere) and so on. ... to use some other EDA software? Sorry, but this road is slippery. That's an unfair criticism. Google ads allow keyword control specifically to avoid showing ads for the competition. Even if that were not the case, the gEDA project could instead rent small text ads directly to some gEDA-friendly advertisers, so that it could have full control over the content. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Open Source mechanical CAD on the horizon
Doesn't pstoedit already do this, too? http://www.pstoedit.net/ Are there advantages to these custom versions? I've wrote some C++ code to convert a DXF to PCB. It is in works for me state. Levente I've written one as well, in the same state. http://vivara.net/software/dxftopcb/ I'd like to see pcb link to dxflib for import and export. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: TO-92 Best Practices
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: What's considered Best Practices for TO-92 packages? Redesign with SOT-23. Easier to solder, faster than stuffing TO-92. +1 Yeah, you guys are helpful. Next up: Q: How do I stop my dog from barking? A: Get a goldfish. :P ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: TO-92 Best Practices
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:19 PM, timecop wrote: Why woudl someone use to92 in 2010. Up to now, it's been because I design soldering kits for beginners. But from now on, I'll do it just to piss you off. Why does Don use them? I don't know. Perhaps he has a low-noise JFET that doesn't come in SOT-23. Or perhaps he's just checking to see whether the folks on this mailing list are helpful or are just a bunch of elitist assholes that give gEDA the wide install base that it has today. Don-- I have a couple of footprints that work well, if you'd like them. They've been tested by thousands of people. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gEDA/gaf Mac OSX screenshots?
Here's one of each. :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/4393096672/sizes/o/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/4393113304/sizes/o/ On Feb 27, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Ales Hvezda wrote: Hi, Could somebody please send me some screenshots of gEDA/gaf 1.6.x and/or PCB running on Mac OSX? Preferably with an interesting schematic/PCBs that you don't mind sharing with the world? Thanks, -Ales ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gEDA/gaf Mac OSX screenshots?
On Feb 27, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Peter Clifton wrote: Hi, Have you ever looked at the GL branch of PCB (my repository here: I'd really *love* to be able to run the latest versions, but I'm afraid that as a mere mortal, I'm nowhere close to being able to do this. I've tried several times to build from source, years apart even. I have gotten badly stuck each time-- and I'm not someone that gives up easily. I've tried all the different configuration options, and put in an absurd amount of time. But after all that, it just feels like a dead end. So, I run the Fink snapshots that Charles Lepple maintains, and I'm very happy to be able to do so. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB Prototype houses that do 0.031 boards?
Yes, they're quite good. These guys are in china. I plan to use them shortly, but can't say if they are good or not. Prices are very nice :) http://www.pcbcart.com/ Windell H. Oskay www.evilmadscientist.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Capture to dxf File - using gEDA, Inkscape, and pstoedit
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Dave N6NZ wrote: Now that will depend on your photochemistry. CO2 laser is not in the visible spectrum. You'd have to check the sensitivity of the photo emulsion w.r.t. wavelength. Most litho films are not sensitive even to red, but do go up into ultra-violet. I can't remember if CO2 is longer or shorter than visible light. In any case, you'd get by with very low power. So now for the wacky idea of the day... an interesting hack would be to make a tool head for a RepRap or some other cheap X/Y bed that simply holds a green laser pointer. That's very funny-- taking it full circle back to building a homebrew photoplotter, just like they use at the fab. :) There *have* actually been some DIY photoplotter projects, you just need to search for those separately. Here is one: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/10/microcontroller_based_pho.html (And yes, the only use for CO2 in PCB fab is ablating resist layers. Exposing it is impractical.) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Capture to dxf File - using gEDA, Inkscape, and pstoedit
We have an Epilog. Low-power lasers of this type cannot cut (or even etch) copper foil, nor can they cut FR4. You can potentially use it to blast away an etch-resist layer, however; I've seen several examples of this. Here is one: http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41222 -Windell On Jan 23, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Bob Paddock wrote: Sometimes you simply can not wait for 24 hour or 1 day turns in the real world. Myself I thought Dave's work was very well timed. Management saw this: http://www.epiloglaser.com/ at CES and is thinking of spending money (a rare event) on one of them. There actually is a lot of industrial related stuff at the consumer show. What I wonder is if this Epilog machine can really do PCBs. I have my doubts about etching the copper directly, but I hope it can harden some pre-sensitize some board material, that can then be conventionally etched. I'll let you know if it happens... ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Capture to dxf File - using gEDA, Inkscape, and pstoedit
On Jan 20, 2010, at 1:59 AM, timecop wrote: Seriously its 2010, even hardcore open-source hippies should be able to afford a decent board house, there are practically no uses for single-sided-non-pth-boards and the number of any kind of important components made in through-hole form factor is decreasing by the month. Yes, it's 2010. And people are using circuitry for things you never imagined. They need encouragement, not ridicule. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: pcb-20091103 photo-mode problem
It looks like photo mode is working on certain boards of mine and not others. Does this have to do with layer names or numbers perhaps? On Jan 1, 2010, at 3:22 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: I must have broken photo-mode when I added mask mode... I'll work on it. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Aperture size for polygon fill
On Oct 26, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote: It may be good to know which version of PCB generated the gerber file, which version of gerbv you used to inspect it. It may be even more helpful to make the source PCB and the gerber file available for inspection by developers. ISTR that older versions of PCB would create Gerbers with this error if you tried to create a hole with zero diameter. This bug was fixed about a year ago, but if you're using an older version of PCB, then you could encounter this problem. This version is 20081128, so yes it's about a year old. If this sounds like an error that's been fixed since, then we probably don't need to worry about it too much. I'm using fink under MacOS 10.6 and I'm also in the middle of a project-- so all signs point to not being able to update in the immediate future. Not a big deal, if I can fix the gerber by hand. (Speaking of which, can anyone confirm or deny that aperture size is unimportant for polygon fill?) The gerbv is 2.0.1, but it's not gerbv's fault: it has correctly identified a real error in the gerber files. Did you create a zero diameter hole in your design for any reason? Certainly not intentionally. Is there any sensible way to search and see if there is one somewhere? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Aperture size for polygon fill
A few of the boards that I've been working on (in PCB) have generated gerber files that show errors in gerbv. The error is Undefined aperture number called out in D code. Looking at the gerber file, I can find sections that look like the following excerpt: G54D18*G54D25*G36* X3778Y10477D02*X4991Y11177D01* X5341Y10570D01* X4128Y9870D01* X3778Y10477D01* G37* This is apparently code to draw a polygon. And... In the aperture table at the top, D25 is not installed.Now, my understanding is that for filled polygons, the aperture size is not actually used-- only the actual vertices of the polygon. Is this understanding correct? If it is, then I *should* be able to go into the file and (1) remove every G54D25* OR (2) go into the file and define a D25 at the top like %ADD25C,0.1000*% as a fix. Or perhaps, someone can correct my assumptions here. :) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Blind and buried vias?
On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:16 AM, John Doty wrote: Yes, pcb is not part of gEDA. It is a separate (older) development. History aside (and like it or not) PCB *is* currently a de facto member of the extended suite of gEDA programs. Ignoring this, or claiming otherwise, is frankly absurd. I don't know who wrote that. gEDA and PCB are separate, independently developed projects. They have different source trees and conventions. That the extended gEDA suite contains separately developed programs, with separate source trees, does not suddenly mean that one of the programs just doesn't count when somebody asks a question about it. That's a poor excuse. Also: The current developers listed on both projects at sourceforge have 50% overlap. That's not exactly independent. They were not originally designed for each other. Nor were peanut butter and jelly, nor mac and cheese. What's your point? That they play well together is a testimony to the power of clean interface design. Let's not forget that, because if we do we will lose that power. You are implying that continuing to acknowledge PCB as one of the extended suite of gEDA programs will lead to a loss in our valued flexibility. No one is saying that, and it's bad logic. I disagree. The abuse of terminology here is dangerous, because it encourages the delusion that gEDA and pcb would be better if they were more integrated. Integrated tools may be easier to use in some sense, but they don't have gEDA's productivity potential. I think that all that anyone has asked is that you acknowledge the integration that does already exist. From what I can tell, you're reasonably happy with that level of integration-- i.e., not much integration at all. As you've said, it is a separate program with a separate source tree. The discussions of gEDA's shortcomings here are disturbingly short- sighted. Maybe. But probably not as short sighted as your contention that acknowledging PCB is dangerous. -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Handling odd solder paste shapes
On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:24 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: No, PCB doesn't have a separate paste layer. It just exports the pad shapes as paste. What's the command to do this? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Handling odd solder paste shapes
On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:39 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: What's the command to do this? File-Export If you export gerber or postscript, you get them by default. By default is a bit of a stretch. I mean, holy crap-- I've built dozens of designs and thousands of circuit boards with PCB, but I have *never* seen a paste layer generated (until just now when I went hunting for it-- since you said it could be done). There is *no mention* of how to generate a paste layer in the PCB documentation, nor in the PCB tips. Yes, I looked. (There is mention of what appeared to be a vestigial flag, but no hint of how to use it.) So... I had long ago come to the conclusion that PCB simply did not support solder paste layers. And so I completely avoided using PCB for designs that involved surface-mount parts. From everything I could see, surface-mount support was only for hobby use since there wasn't any way to generate a paste layer. And since the solder paste layer is *not* generated by default, but *only* when there are surface mount parts, I wouldn't have found it at all, except that you mentioned it today. So... Maybe it would be worth adding some mention of it in the documentation? ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Handling odd solder paste shapes
Go ahead ;-) Fair enough. But how can one go about making small changes to the documentation? The cvs PCB manual doesn't cover export options-- there is no appropriate section in which to add a little note. (Rewriting the manual to be an up-to-date reference for the GUI-based end user would be a *huge* project to take on-- not something for a casual contributor.) And the wiki pages, which are filled with excellent hints and seem like the right place to add this sort of information, don't appear to allow editing. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Freedog-like groups in Southern California?
I'm also in Sunnyvale. :) On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Steven Michalske wrote: On the Northern California front. I'm in sunnyvale, CA. Any other users in the area On Jun 24, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Anthony Shanks wrote: Sorry man if you were in Northern California I'd have no problem helping you. Good luck with your search. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Invitation: Linux Fund/gEDA party at OSCON in San Jose
Neat-- I'll be there! (CandyFab will be in the .org pavilion at OSCON.) On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote: Hi -- Just a quick note. As part of the open-source conference OSCON, Linux Fund has invited developers and users of the gEDA Toolset to a party! The party details are here: http://www.linuxfund.org/press/anniversary/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Bad news about gEDA's participation in GSoC 2009
I've been pretty slack, and have not had much time to put into it, but I'm not going to stop working on it (please keep hassling me for progress!). Yes yes yes! I was at a meeting last night and showed several people your screenshots. One person said that they would switch from Eagle-- and learn everything all over again --if there was a better autorouter like this. So, *please* keep up the good work! -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: OT: Single sided PCB...
On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Mike Jarabek wrote: Hi All, DJ, it looks like it's time to add that single sided support to PCB: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/02/mobius_circuit.html I just saw this, and could not resist sending it off. Not sure if the maker here is on our list or not... Yes, that was me. (I couldn't resist actually building it.) The full article is here: http://www.evilmadscientist.com/go/mobiuscircuit I normally use PCB for layout, but for some reason it was having trouble with this one. :) -Windell ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Make discussion about gEDA
There's a post on the Make blog today about gEDA, with an open invitation to comment. Anybody want to lend a voice? http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/02/remixed_drawdio.html ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Guerilla marketing...
on-topic plugOur little company, Evil Mad Science LLC ( http://evilmadscience.com/ ) has a similar model-- Most of our products are open source hardware kits that were designed in gEDA. We're not shy about it; whenever possible, we point out that the projects were done with gEDA, and we make the design files available in pcb format. It is a goal of ours to increase adoption of open-source hardware tools; I think we've actually managed to get quite a number of people to look at gEDA with our designs. :) /on-topic plug I don't know about guerilla marketing, but it might help to tell people about successful gEDA projects. Matt Ettus (http:// www.ettus.com) has apparently built a thriving business around free hardware designed with gEDA. My friends at MIT and Espace, Inc. are using his products to upgrade the HETE communication stations to support a variety of space missions, basically anything the dishes are suited for, rather than just the frequency/modulation used by a single mission. Of course, most professional gEDA projects are proprietary, so you can't show people much. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: pcb bug: EPS output omits pads
pcb -x eps \ --element-color '#ff' \ --pin-color '#00' \ --layer-color-1 '#ff' \ --as-shown \ --layer-stack 0,elements,pins \ --eps-file testprint.eps \ powermeter.pcb Besides layer names, it accepts rats, invisible, pins, vias, and elements. This is a partial work-around for some cases, but I would agree with the original assertion that something is amiss with the eps export. For some documentation that I'm writing, I need a vector drawing of my circuit board *as it appears*, i.e., with silk, pins, and vias -- but not tracks-- visible. (Kinda like ben/photo mode, but in vector.) So far as I can tell, pcb is quite incapable of exporting an eps drawing like that, even though it's trivial to display just those parts by clicking which layers are visible. Since this is considerably different from what would be expected by a reasonable observer, I would indeed classify it as a bug-- either in the function executed or in the label, because it cannot generate an eps as shown. The method that you describe above-- exporting a file with some parts invisible-- can be used to make the tracks invisible as well. I can use that method to produce a fake version of what I need, with the tracks in white but the silk, pins, and vias visible, but those white tracks are *still there* and actually do get in the way of what I'm doing. I did find a genuine but invasive work-around that can generate the output that I wanted, which *may* also help with the pad-omission problem as well. Make a duplicate pcb file for documentation/output: circuit-doc.pcb Open the circuit-doc.pcb file in a text editor, delete the entire contents of all layers with tracks on them. Pins and pads should not be affected, since they are stored as parts of the element. Save and then open the modified file in pcb. Make all layers visible and export eps. This should everything but the tracks to the EPS file. - Windell Windell H. Oskay Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories http://www.evilmadscientist.com/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
