advice on selecting new PCB design package

[[email protected]]

No........ haven't been under any rocks old friend. Right, so you use
open source all the time do you...Mmmmm. Is this professionally or
personally...? If it's professionally can you divulge the name of your
company? Does it have a website? Can you tell me the number of staff,
revenues, etc...?

You went into a long attack on my logic then say:

"gEDA is capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its
appearance and
usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the schematic and pcb
screenshots look like something from an early 1990's DOS program. I'm
sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new users
without a major facelift"

Would any sensible commercial enterprise want to save a few hundred
dollars by using something resembling an early 90's DOS product"...????

Prescott

 

[[email protected]]

Right......... gimmee the names of some well known companies using gEDA
on serious, mission critcal projects????

Prescott

 

[[email protected]]

OK Paul, are you talking from experience or what you think sounds
right....???

You say "but people who have tried it (KiCAD) say it works well"....

what people...??

Tell us about the serious projects KiCAD has been used on..?? Can you
give me the size of boards, number of layers, level of technology,
value of projects...etc.

Prescott

 

[Dave Boland]

I would like to jump in on this discussion. I have been
frustrated finding an EDA program that is:

* relatively easy to learn/use (I don't do cards very often)
* Can do a EuroCard sized card (4 in. by 6 in. I believe)
* 2 signal 2 power construction, 512 nodes
* Schematic capture and PCB design
* Low cost to free (for moderate use).

My review of various programs has found:

* Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and
won't for now)

* FreePCB -- no schematic capture, but seems good otherwise.

* gEDA -- This group of well meaning people just don't have
a clue! Just read the most recent Circuit Cellar. An hour
to install on Linux! I don't think so. gEDA needs a
consistent interface from program to program, an installer
such as an open version of Wise, and a Windows version.
Most desktops are Windows, so why not a Windows version?? A
good user guide is also needed. This is a lot of work I
know (this is what I do for a living, so I fully get what is
involved), but is a requirement for gEDA to soar to the
heights that I believe it is capable of doing. I would
settle for a Knoppix CD with all of the gEDA programs and a
user guide. The user guide can be an updated version of the
articles in CC for a start.

* ExpressPCB -- propriety data format. Not acceptable!!

* Eagle -- Not the most user friendly program I have seen,
especially for a "professional" one. The free version is
very limited as well, but will do. This is what I'm using
until one of the ones above offer a better deal.

Dave,

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
to handle 6 layers for nothing.
You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
mess with a free product like gEDA?

Because products like gEDA aren't just about being free (although
that is nice). They are about giving you _full_ control over your
design. Common sense says that commercial entities are
interested in making money (right?) so they will do as much as
possible to retain control over your designs that you created using
their product (that is, lock you into using their product exclusively)
and make it as hard as possible to use a competitor's product. I
like to control the software I use.

Here's a good list of reasons why somebody would want to use
gEDA (or any free software/OSS for that matter):

http://geda.seul.org/dokuwiki/doku...._makes_geda_so_different_from_other_eda_tools
(sorry about the long link)

[snip]

Rule of thumb: if you're a hobbyist, a technofreak, and/or design small
and very simple two sided boards with just a few standard components
then give the freebes a try. If you're doing any kind of commercial
level boards of any size above small and simple then expect to pay at
least $500 and upwards for something decent and reliable.

Here's a list of successful projects on the 'net (there are more out
there; I just haven't found them and some are commercial people
obviously do not post their designs ) that use gEDA:

http://geda.seul.org/links.html#projects

I would say that some of them are fairly non-trivial. It becoming
more and more evident that free software/OSS tools are capable
of being used to create complex designs.

-Ales

 

[David Brown]

I would like to jump in on this discussion. I have been frustrated
finding an EDA program that is:

* relatively easy to learn/use (I don't do cards very often)
* Can do a EuroCard sized card (4 in. by 6 in. I believe)
* 2 signal 2 power construction, 512 nodes
* Schematic capture and PCB design
* Low cost to free (for moderate use).

My review of various programs has found:

* Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and won't for now)

You use WinME ?!? I didn't think anyone considered WinME a usable
system, even for the simplest home use. I don't normally like it when
people recommend upgrading your OS just to run a particular program, but
in the case of WinME, I'd make an exception. W2K or even XP is a much
better OS all round (assuming you want to remain with windows).

Incidentally, have you tried Kicad with WinME? I know the website says
W2K or XP, but it might run fine nonetheless. Certainly the main tools
and libraries (mingw and wxWidgets) are fine under at least Win98.

 

[Dave Boland]

You use WinME ?!?

Yes, and it works well. Even for developing large VB6
desktop applications with database and multiple RS-232 ports
going. Shock!

I didn't think anyone considered WinME a usable

system, even for the simplest home use. I don't normally like it when
people recommend upgrading your OS just to run a particular program, but
in the case of WinME, I'd make an exception. W2K or even XP is a much
better OS all round (assuming you want to remain with windows).

I've given billionaire Gates all of the money he is going to
get! My preference is for Linux once the desktop has as
good functionality as WinME (here comes the holy wars). I
want easy to use, consistent, etc. I know it can be done --
look at the Mac or Sun. I have used both and love them.
For a number of reasons the PC is a better choice for now,
and a Linux that works like a Mac or Sun would be great.

Incidentally, have you tried Kicad with WinME?

Yes, and I get unicode and other errors. My guess is that
the developer uses WinXP. I found that doing development
this way to be a big mistake. Better to use the lowest
common denominator of O.S.'s and test with a higher level.
Takes less time, offers a wider audience.

I know the website says

 

[David Brown]

No........ haven't been under any rocks old friend. Right, so you use
open source all the time do you...Mmmmm. Is this professionally or
personally...? If it's professionally can you divulge the name of your
company? Does it have a website? Can you tell me the number of staff,
revenues, etc...?

Newsgroup discussions like this are my own personal opinion, rather than
those of my employer, etc., etc. But my company knows what software I
use, and others here use lots of open source software.

I use a great deal of open source software professionally. So do most
serious computer users who go beyond the limits of word processor, web
browser and email. And everyone uses open source software behind the
scenes, whether they know it or not - the great majority of internet
infrastructure (mail routers, DNS servers, that sort of thing) is open
source software, as are a substantial proportion of other servers.

Apart from "standard" open source software such as FireFox, Thunderbird
and Open Office (which are to be found on many professionals' desktops),
I make a great deal of use of open source utility software (such as
cygwin), and I specifically choose open source tools for my embedded
systems programming when such tools are available (and of a solid
quality). If you want, I can go into detail as to why.

You went into a long attack on my logic then say:

I didn't attack your logic - there was no logical argument but bold
statements such as "common sense must tell you..." and "anyone who
relies on software tools for the livelihood wasting time with them...
No, of course not".

"gEDA is capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its
appearance and
usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the schematic and pcb
screenshots look like something from an early 1990's DOS program. I'm
sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new users
without a major facelift"

I don't disagree that gEDA or KiCAD is unlikely to be a sensible choice
for a professional EDA designer. There will be occasional situations
when such tools *are* the best for particular professionals, but not in
general. In the case of EDA tools, open source software is not (yet)
suitable for the mainstream.

What I strongly disagree with is your absurd claims that no open source
software is suitable for any professional use. I believe in using the
right tool for the right job, based on sensible decisions rather than
knee-jerk reactions and PHB logic (such as "if we haven't paid for it,
who do we sue when it stops working?"). That means using commercial
software or open source software (or commercial implementations of open
source software) as appropriate for the job.

Would any sensible commercial enterprise want to save a few hundred
dollars by using something resembling an early 90's DOS product"...????

You seem hung up on the idea of money. Open source means a great deal
more than just money. Professional users of Linux, for example, are
generally perfectly happy to pay hundreds of dollars for a solid Linux
distribution from Red Hat or Novel/SuSE. If gEDA were brought up to a
usable standard, they would have no problem selling CDs with basic
support contracts and documentation for a few hundred dollars. While
money is sometimes relevant (would I buy a compiler for $2000 when I can
get one for free? Only if the commercial one was very much better in
some way to justify the price), there are lots of other reasons for
choosing open source software.

Let me give you an example of the use of open source software in a
closely related field. If you use Altera's FPGA tools (or Xilinx's -
they have a virtually identical setup), you'll find that most of the
infrastructure of their tools is open source. They use open source
languages like TCL and Perl substantially, and include a cut-down cygwin
(posix layer for windows, along with a range of gnu and other open
source utilities) installation. If you use their soft processor
toolkit, it is based around Eclipse (an open source IDE), and the
compiler and debugger are ports of the standard open source gcc compiler
and gdb debugger.

Prescott

By the way, if you want to use google groups for posting to usenet, it's
helpful if you quote properly. I know the google groups interface is
broken, but apparently the following works:

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[DJ Delorie]

gEDA is capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its
appearance and usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the
schematic and pcb screenshots look like something from an early
1990's DOS program.

The PCB program in gEDA *is* 20 years old! But last year it got
upgraded to Gtk, and over the last few months I've been segregating
the GUI from the rest of the code, so we now support both Motif and
GTK, and ...

I'm sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new
users without a major facelift (and a native windows port -
cross-platform programming is not *that* hard, as long as you use
toolkits like GTK or wxWidgets rather than XAW).

.... PCB's new API should easily support a native Windows and/or MacOS
GUI. I think someone's already working on wxWidgets too.

So if you want to say there are no open source EDA tools that are
ready for mainstream professional use, then I (unfortunately) have
to agree.

I don't think gEDA is trying to compete with the big commercial
packages. I think we're trying to compete with the small and medium
commercial packages.

But that's not because of problems with open source as such - it is
lack of money, time, motivation and direction that currently stops
gEDA from being a match for Protel, OrCAD, etc.

Money and time, yes - I fully agree! But I have plenty of motivation,
and lots of people are providing direction, no problems there.

And we're certainly open to offers for contracting work on gEDA, if
someone wants to provide the money so we can afford to spend more time
on it. How much does it cost to have Orcad add a custom feature for
you?

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
to handle 6 layers for nothing.

Does "common sense" tell you that you can't get an operating system for
nothing? gEDA is still in what I'd call its early stages, but it shows plenty
of promise and will -- hopefully -- eventually end up being as good a CAD tool
as Linux is an operating system. That being said, while I think Linux is
good, I also think that Windows is decent -- and worth the purchase price --
as well. Similarly, even when gEDA is a little more full-featured, that
doesn't mean that commercial offerings won't be worth the money.

In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
tools, only what I can get free on the internet".

Uhh... you know about Open Office, right? It's not 100% compatible with
Microsoft Office (in particular it doesn't support Visual BASIC scripting and
the other forms of "automation" the office suite does), but for at least 90%
of all Office users I'd defy you to find something Open Office doesn't do
equally well (including opening and saving Office format files).

For that matter -- although it's something of a dying package -- TeX, LaTeX,
etc. are considered by some as superior document preparation systems to the
likes of Word, and these days most implementations are free or almost free.

---Joel

 

[DJ Delorie]

* gEDA -- This group of well meaning people just don't have a clue!

Please specify which clues we're missing. Saying it's bad is not
constructive criticism, it's just criticism. Point out how we can
make it better, and we'll add your suggestions to the list (we know
about the ones below already). Please make sure you're using the
latest version first, though.

Just read the most recent Circuit Cellar.

That article was written a year ago, and a *lot* has changed in the
software since then.

An hour to install on Linux! I don't think so.

That's because the CD-ROMs have sources on them, not binaries, to
avoid incompatibilities with your OS.

and a Windows version.

I think you can get them to work with Cygwin, but yeah, we know about
that requirement.

A good user guide is also needed.

I could say that about a lot of commercial packages, too ;-)

I would settle for a Knoppix CD with all of the gEDA programs and a
user guide.

I think someone's mentioned a LiveCD with gEDA on it, on our mailing
lists.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Dave,

* Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and won't for now)

Does this imply you're running WinME? I'd suggest it's *really* worth the
money to pick up a used copy of Windows 2000 on eBay or similar and install it
on your PC.

* gEDA -- This group of well meaning people just don't have a clue! Just
read the most recent Circuit Cellar. An hour to install on Linux!

Kinda reminiscent of the early days of Linux, no?

* ExpressPCB -- propriety data format. Not acceptable!!

I understand your frustation here, although it's not a show-stopper for me.
(I used it once while working at Tektronix. Our group used it for
non-critical test/prototype boards! They had enough bueaurcracy around and
the "official" PCB layout department with their very $$$ tools took a dim view
of engineerings wanting to layout their own boards -- even though going
through the layout department usually have severe schedule impacts, i.e., a
month to layout a 4"x6" double sided board.) My feeling was that ExpressPCB
is targeted towards pretty simply boards anyway, so worst case having to
re-enter the design into a better package was probably no more than a couple
days work.

---Joel

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Dave,

I've given billionaire Gates all of the money he is going to get! My
preference is for Linux once the desktop has as good functionality as WinME
(here comes the holy wars). I want easy to use, consistent, etc.

I want to be able to click on "setup.exe" and actually have the equivalent of
start menu icons appears regardless of whether I'm running KDE, Gnome, or
whatever else.

Given the development model of Linux, I don't expect there'll ever be just one
desktop (as there is in 99% of cases for Windows, Macs, and Suns -- there
actually are a few people hardcore enough to run alternative Windows desktops
out there, but there of course are compatible with the Windows Explorer in
terms of picking up the menus and icons from the right places) -- and that's
certainly a good thing. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that
all those guys get together to agree on a few more standards.

Yes, and I get unicode and other errors. My guess is that the developer
uses WinXP. I found that doing development this way to be a big mistake.
Better to use the lowest common denominator of O.S.'s and test with a higher
level.

I hate to tell you this, but in 2006 it's a reasonable expection that Windows
2000 is the "lowest common denominator." Yes, I know, plenty of people still
use Windows 98 or 95 (or even DOS!), but as far as new development goes, you
just can't expect people to be writing software for anything over 6 years old,
IMO.

---Joel

 

[Joel Kolstad]

DJ,

And if it doesn't happen to do what you want, you have options that
the commercial vendors can't offer you:
* You can change it yourself.

....etc...

I'd just point out that -- while you certainly have a point -- better EDA
tools that have keyboard re-mapping and automation features (e.g., a good
macro language) can go a long way towards providing any new "feature" you want
anyway, and yet you still retain compatibility with everyone else who's
running the tool. Realistically you can't expect that anyone running gEDA
will have any changes you've implemented other than those that were officially
accepted into the "main line" distribution; as such configuration files and
external (script/macro) interfaces can be much more "portable."

 

[Joel Kolstad]

[email protected] wrote:
For some types of software I am even more extreme - in my role as IT manager
for our company, I dictate that Internet Explorer, a popular commercial
browser, is not to be used for security reasons, while open source FireFox
and free (but not open source) Opera are suitable.

Let me guess... you'd ban Windows altogether "for security reasons" if you
could? I think your position is a little extreme -- with a decent network
firewalling and automatic security patching, I'd guesstimate about 99% of
security problems are with the end users (people consciously agreeing to &
running a download, for instance) and not the software itself. I don't know
what kind of company your the IT manager of, but in a company of
engineering-level employees, it's downright insulting to try to dictate what
web browser they might use. And of course many software companies require
Internet Explorer to test their own products, since that's what their own
customers will be using.

What the open source tools do have, though, is open file formats - something
that is sorely missed in this branch, and a major source of vendor lock-in.

What, you don't like EDIF?

 

[DJ Delorie]

I'd just point out that -- while you certainly have a point --
better EDA tools that have keyboard re-mapping and automation
features (e.g., a good macro language) can go a long way towards
providing any new "feature" you want anyway, and yet you still
retain compatibility with everyone else who's running the tool.

PCB (well, the Xaw and Motif versions) has keyboard remapping, user
definable menus, and limited scriptability already. I'm planning on
letting you script mouse buttons too. I don't know if the Gtk folks
will add that to their GUI.

The new API we're just finishing up offers a standard way to add
modules to the core, without worrying too much about compatibility.
Such modules at the moment are limited to GUI and export (print,
gerber, png, etc), but there's no reason why we couldn't support
import and "wizard" modules too.

Ok, now I'm thinking we could add dynamic linking support, and let you
have your module as a .so or .dll. Sigh, more work to do.

I suppose you could add a script interpreter as a module, too.

Realistically you can't expect that anyone running gEDA will have
any changes you've implemented other than those that were officially
accepted into the "main line" distribution; as such configuration
files and external (script/macro) interfaces can be much more
"portable."

I would hope that people who need changes bad enough to fund them,
would help themselves and everyone else by getting their new features
added to the official code set. That's how most of the features that
are there got there.

But my point is you *can* choose that option. A more realistic option
is to pay the gEDA developers to add what you want to the official
sources, then you have it forever and don't have to worry about
compatibility.

 

[Stuart Brorson]

Oh my! Another open-source EDA flamefest of sci.electronics.cad!
Dax's comments are very interesting, and he seems well informed
regarding commerical offerings. On the other hand, the open-source
discussion is giving me a feeling of deja vu.

I'll make a couple of points and then disappear again.


* Don Prescott says:

Right......... gimmee the names of some well known companies using
gEDA on serious, mission critcal projects????

Don apparently has a memory loss problem since he asked *exactly* this
question last year on s.e.c. Here's the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....t&q=don+prescott+geda&rnum=1#8fb926cc65ee62f8

The point made to Don then (and now) is that this business about
"mission critical projects" is a red herring. (Remember, Don?) GEDA
competes against low to mid level EDA packages. Nobody uses low- to
mid-level EDA packages for "mission critical" projects. That is,
nobody will use circuitmaker, pulsonix, ExpressPCB, Eagle, Kicad, or
gEDA for a 20 layer router board with 622MBps busses requiring
matched-length tracks & 2.5Gbps diff pairs to an optical transceiver.
If you're worried about "mission critical" stuff, then fork out your
$20000 and use Allegro.

On the other hand, if you need to bang out a 4 layer test board in a
hurry, then give gEDA a try. Or if you're a student, hobbiest,
independent consultant, or professional engineer who needs to do a
reasonably simple board in a hurry, it's worth it to try the
open-source alternative. You can easily do a 6 or 8 layer board with
a couple of hundred components.

Yes, gEDA lacks a couple of features (such as backanno from PCB to
gschem), but this is well known and documented in the gEDA FAQ:

http://geda.seul.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=geda:faq

Open-source stuff is completely open about it's features and
drawbacks. Is commerical software?


* Dave Boland says:

If gEDA were brought up to a
usable standard, they would have no problem ...

Folks often assert that gEDA (or other open-source software) is
"difficult to use". This is a naked assertion made without any
support; unfortunately, it creates the same effect amongst uninformed
potential users as intentional, vendor-created FUD. Dave, can you
please call out specific problems in gEDA holding it below a "usable
standard"? I am particularly interested in hearing about stuff you
notice while trying to use gEDA. If you haven't actually used it,
then let us know.

gEDA needs a consistent interface from program to program

GEDA is a collection of programs written by a confederacy of different
programmers who have banded together to create a suite of tools useful
to everybody. There are certainly UI differences between the
different tools. OTOH, at the level of file formats and design
compatibility, the design flow in gEDA is pretty seamless. No Perl
duct tape is needed anywhere. This isn't true of lots of ASIC flows,
but nobody every complains. Think about how different all the Xilinx
FPGA tools are (when run from the command line)! Why do people beef
about gEDA, but ignore Xilinx? Answer: the complainers don't have that
much experience with EDA tools. Just MHO.

Here in New England, the most common board flow (in my experience,
anyway) seems to be Viewdraw -> Allegro or Viewdraw -> PADS. In both
cases, there is a large difference in the UI experience between the
two programs. Like gEDA, the schematic capture program was developed
by a different group from the layout editor. However, Viewdraw can
export flawless Allegro and PADS netlists, and nobody every asserts
that this UI difference is a problem. The same is true of gschem,
which can export over 20 different netlist formats. Maybe 5 or
thereabouts are layout netlists -- for open-source as well as for
commercial (e.g. Protel) tools.

This topic is discussed at greater length in the FAQ linked above.

An hour to install on Linux! I don't think so.

As DJ pointed out, this is (average) time required for the install
wizard to run from begin to completion. The install wizard simply
automates the process of compiling the software from source. You
don't need to be there while the wizard is doing its thing; it runs
itself, unlike a Windows install wizard.

Installing the software from source was chosen for the CD distribution
since it eliminates many of the dependency problems associated with
installing binaries onto unknown systems. It is also consistent with
the GNU/open-source philosophy. If you want to install binaries, the
following package types are also available on the gEDA website: Red
Hat RPM, Debian DEB, and Mac Fink. Check them out here:

http://geda.seul.org/download.html

BSD packages are also available elsehwere.

and a Windows version.

This is an interesting one. It is certainly true that there is no
good Windows version of gEDA. There are (at least) two reasons for
this:

1. Nobody has stepped up to the plate to make this happen. Most of
the gEDA developers are Linux geeks, and they are not very interested
in producing a Windows port. "If you want to use gEDA, get a Linux
box" is the reigning philosophy. If a new developer does a Windows
port, he will be welcomed into the fold.

2. Some current gEDA developers also feel that a Windows version
would open the floodgates to totally clueless newbies, who would then
flood the e-mail discussion lists with dumb questions and support
requests. GEDA is created by volunteer developers; they don't want to
spend 10 hours/day holding the hands of idiotic and ungrateful
newbies. If you want an example of what can happen to a totally-open
EDA project running on Windows, read some of the idiocy posted to the
LTSpice Yahoo group, or read the constant begging for free cores on
the OpenCores development lists.

A good user guide is also needed.

That's what the two articles in Circuit Cellar (March & April 2006)
are about. There is also a lot of documentation on the web site,
including official docs, tutorials, and an ever-expanding, wiki-based
FAQ. See it all here:

http://geda.seul.org/docs/index.html

GEDA is not difficult to use if you have some passing familiarity with
EDA programs, or you take the time to read the docs. (Unbelieveably,
we have seen total newbies try it without doing any reading, or having
ever run any other CAD software before. That individual whined a lot
on the e-mail list, but apparently got his project done.) Nor does it
look like a DOS program. (What prompted that assertion?)

GEDA is available for free download and has been used (by me, for
example) both at my day job as well as at home for my own projects.
Unlike e.g. Eagle, the stuff you download for free is full-featured --
there is no crippled version of gEDA. I suggest that interested folks
download it for themselves and try it out -- warts and all -- rather
than believe FUD spread around on usenet.

Stuart

 

[JeffM]

::gEDA needs...and a Windows version.

I think someone's mentioned a LiveCD with gEDA on it,
on our mailing lists.
DJ Delorie

I appreciate the
*steering business toward Redmond is evil* mindset
(or whatever makes a Windows port less attractive to developers).

The big hurdle you guys have to jump is getting folks to install Linux.
ISTM, a bootable Knoppix-like release of gEDA
would push things in that direction.
People who already use Seamonkey (or Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvu),
OpenOffice.org, mplayer / VideoLAN Client, the GIMP, gcc, GAIM, etc.
under Windoze would get used to yet 1 more piece of utilitarian
software
and maybe that would further convince them
that OS migration isn't going to be that big a deal anyway
as far as lack of apps.

I'm hoping you guys give this notion more than a passing glance.

 

[John Doty]

::gEDA needs...and a Windows version.



I appreciate the
*steering business toward Redmond is evil* mindset
(or whatever makes a Windows port less attractive to developers).

I don't think that's the issue. As a gEDA user I've gotten to know the
developers (even gone out to dinner with some), and as far as I can tell
they just aren't Windows developers. Personally, I use MacOSX on a
PowerBook for portability and Linux on midrange commodity hardware for
heavy lifting: gEDA works well in both those environments (needs Fink on
MacOSX), so it suits me very well. gEDA's modular toolkit approach suits
me well also: my customers want netlists and schematics (they have other
contractors they use for board or chip design).

Somebody *did* port gEDA to Windows a few years ago, but nobody
maintained the port. If the Windows EDA community wants gEDA, somebody
has to step forward and do the work.

 

[DJ Delorie]

I appreciate the *steering business toward Redmond is evil* mindset

I won't speak for the others here, but my opinion is that open source
software on proprietary platforms acts as a lever to convince more
people to consider open source software in general, and specifically
to consider OSS alternatives to their existing applications.

Thus, the goal still isn't to steer business *towards* Redmond, but to
convince people (by example) to steer away from it. A program that
*only* works on Windows would steer business to Redmond. A program
that's available on multiple platforms lets the user choose the OS if
they can, yet still use OSS applications if they can't.

A Windows user who prefers Firefox to IE, may choose gEDA over Eagle
as a "first try" because of a bias towards OSS from Firefox.
Eventually, they may choose to replace Windows with, say, Linux,
assuming it's going to be better for them like all the other OSS apps
they use. Etc.

Of course, this assumes that (1) they *can* use the applications on
their OS, and (2) they find them to be as usable (for less cost), or
better than proprietary alternatives.

So, I have no personal opposition to Windows (heck, I wrote DJGPP,
remember?), I just don't happen to use it. If I were to develop any
Windows apps these days, I'd have to install a MinGW cross compiler
and Wine.

 

[Gary Crowell / VCP]

I'd used DOS PCAD back in '88-'91 and came back to it in '98. By then it was Windows based
ACCEL-PCAD V13, and Tango was mixed in there sometime. Was it Tango that was orphaned, or did Tango
become PCAD?

Anyway now its V18, Altium PCAD 2004. The 2004 version (which really didn't come out 'til early
2005) has been pretty well maintained and they say there will be a 2006 release. It continues to
suffer from rumors that it will be merged into Protel (Altium Designer DXP, whatever).