Eagle library editor

[Joerg]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Forgot what I paid since I won't upgrade right now but it was truly
miniscule compared to just about any other commercial CAD package. Beats
me why some shady people still crack it.

I thank those people for not having to deal with dongles, tedious
registration schemes, node locks, etc. ...

Amen!

... I always use the cracked
version and leave the original on the shelf. I have a rule: if
software has some kind of registration/licensing scheme I won't buy it
unless there is a cracked version. I don't want to be punished or held
on a leash when buying software.

I've only bought two of those kinds, and only because of a client.

Regarding Kicad I actually like it a lot. It is a very fine piece of
software. Except for that ugly frame that cannot be removed or replaced
by a more professional one. That relegates this otherwise very fine
software into the hobby corner. The gurus seem to not want to notice, or
care. Oh well, I will stay with Eagle then for the time being. The only
gripe about that one is lack of hierarchy, else I wouldn't even be
looking for any alternatives .

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.

It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
promising CAD tool in the niche area. Plus they do not seem to believe
in the integrated suite concept yet that's clearly where the market is
going since years.

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Don't worry. Nothing bad happens if you do not exchange schematics with
shady folks who use cracked software. Since I only use it for business
this has never happened to me.

However, Eagle cannot do hierarchical schematics and that is a major
flaw if you do very large projects. Not so much in my case because most
clients use me to only design the really difficult chunks of a project.
RF, nanoscond stuff, low noise, things like that. So my schematics
rarely exceed 4-5 sheets which can be handled sans hierarchy. Designing,
for example, a whole ultrasound machine on Eagle would be next to
impossible.

Kicad could probably be fixed fairly easily but the movers and shakers
do not listen to feedback such as mine. So ...

I tried Kicad but I'm not impressed.

Other than that ugly fixed frame, what didn't you like about it?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Rich Webb]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:58:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Forgot what I paid since I won't upgrade right now but it was truly
miniscule compared to just about any other commercial CAD package. Beats
me why some shady people still crack it.

I thank those people for not having to deal with dongles, tedious
registration schemes, node locks, etc. ...


Amen!


... I always use the cracked
version and leave the original on the shelf. I have a rule: if
software has some kind of registration/licensing scheme I won't buy it
unless there is a cracked version. I don't want to be punished or held
on a leash when buying software.


I've only bought two of those kinds, and only because of a client.

Regarding Kicad I actually like it a lot. It is a very fine piece of
software. Except for that ugly frame that cannot be removed or replaced
by a more professional one. That relegates this otherwise very fine
software into the hobby corner. The gurus seem to not want to notice, or
care. Oh well, I will stay with Eagle then for the time being. The only
gripe about that one is lack of hierarchy, else I wouldn't even be
looking for any alternatives .

When I need to baseline or checkpoint a Kicad schematic, or otherwise
produce one with the approved frame, I just do a plot to DXF with the
"print page references" (e.g., the frame) un-checked, and then suck that
into CAD for framing, naming, etc..

Everybody can read DXF/DWG or a PDF printed from CAD and I can continue
on with the "working copies" in Kicad. One nice thing about the format
is that I can stick rcs tags ($Id$ or $Revision$) into the frame and
have them automatically updated by rcs.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Nico Coesel]

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.

It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
Kicad could probably be fixed fairly easily but the movers and shakers
do not listen to feedback such as mine. So ...

I tried Kicad but I'm not impressed.


Other than that ugly fixed frame, what didn't you like about it?

I tried the PCB package. I didn't like the way you have to edit
traces.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Joerg]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.
It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
Kicad could probably be fixed fairly easily but the movers and shakers
do not listen to feedback such as mine. So ...
I tried Kicad but I'm not impressed.

Other than that ugly fixed frame, what didn't you like about it?

I tried the PCB package. I didn't like the way you have to edit
traces.

Ok, I usually don't do layouts and mostly I looked at the schematic editor.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

Rich Webb wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:58:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Forgot what I paid since I won't upgrade right now but it was truly
miniscule compared to just about any other commercial CAD package. Beats
me why some shady people still crack it.
I thank those people for not having to deal with dongles, tedious
registration schemes, node locks, etc. ...

Amen!


... I always use the cracked
version and leave the original on the shelf. I have a rule: if
software has some kind of registration/licensing scheme I won't buy it
unless there is a cracked version. I don't want to be punished or held
on a leash when buying software.

I've only bought two of those kinds, and only because of a client.

Regarding Kicad I actually like it a lot. It is a very fine piece of
software. Except for that ugly frame that cannot be removed or replaced
by a more professional one. That relegates this otherwise very fine
software into the hobby corner. The gurus seem to not want to notice, or
care. Oh well, I will stay with Eagle then for the time being. The only
gripe about that one is lack of hierarchy, else I wouldn't even be
looking for any alternatives .

When I need to baseline or checkpoint a Kicad schematic, or otherwise
produce one with the approved frame, I just do a plot to DXF with the
"print page references" (e.g., the frame) un-checked, and then suck that
into CAD for framing, naming, etc..

Everybody can read DXF/DWG or a PDF printed from CAD and I can continue
on with the "working copies" in Kicad. ...

DXF/DWG no, but PDF yes. However, I need to be able to edit a custom
title block right there in the schematic. Having to roach one on and
edit as an "afterthought" is kludgy, and in some highly regulated
markets very much frowned upon by the agencies that audit us. Because it
is de-facto separated from the data file.

... One nice thing about the format
is that I can stick rcs tags ($Id$ or $Revision$) into the frame and
have them automatically updated by rcs.

That is nice. But it won't help if one cannot have a frame that matches
the corporate standard. Many of us have to work by standard operating
procedures and then this kind of software can be a no-no.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Peter Bennett]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:43:53 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

Peter Bennett <peterbb@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:47:14 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 12/21/2011 08:21 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:23:23 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Thanks for the wisdom on the last newbie question. I managed to finish
a simple schematic (1 pHEMT, one SiGe bipolar, and one fast op amp--a
whole 22 parts altogether).

Now for a board layout, and the next question. I figured out how to set
the design rules to make a four-layer board with two cores, with prepreg
in between. Now I need to make a ground plane. So far, I've done:

set layer 2 to be net GND, supply plane box checked in the DISPLAY dialogue

POLY GND
draw the polygon
autoroute (just for test purposes, honest)

The autoroute fails because it's trying to put everything on layer 1,
and it ignores the ground plane almost entirely--it routes the grounds,
and it makes no vias or thermals in the ground plane. Except for
one--it makes a big hole under the Pin 1 mark on the IC package, which
is drawn as a wire in the package editor.

How do I get Eagle to recognize the ground plane as a ground plane?

How do I get the autorouter to use more than one layer?

Thanks

Phil Hobbs


I've only used Protel, so this may not apply to Eagle.

However, in Protel, anything you draw on a plane layer is not-copper,
so if I declared Layer 2 as a ground plane, then drew a polygon on it
covering the whole board, I would have _removed_ all the copper on
that layer - obviously, the autorouter would know not to use that
non-copper for ground connections.


That might be it, thanks.

Cheers

Phil "Gradually coming up to speed" Hobbs

Also, in Protel, I normally drew a wide track around the edge of the
board on the plane layers - this kept the plane copper from extending
to the edge of the board - this could be important, especially if the
board will be mounted in metal guides.

That sounds like a very odd and obfustigated way to get a copper pour.
AFAIK you can define copper pours in most programs by drawing a
polygon. In some software packages (Orcad Layout comes to mind) you
can define a layer as a plane so the layer if filled with copper by
default and anything you 'draw' in it is anti-copper.

I think you misunderstood me, and/or didn't read my first post.

In Protel, you can define a layer as a plane (like Orcad, I expect),
but the copper plane extends to the horizon. You draw a wide track on
the board edge on the plane layer to keep the copper away from the
actual board edge.

You can also place filled polygons on the normal routing layers if you
want a large copper area there. If you place a filled polygon on a
plane layer, you get a hole in the plane.

--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb (at) telus.net
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

 

[Baron]

Nico Coesel Inscribed thus:

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Jeff has a grudge ! In your case he achieved his aim...
If it was a legitimate complaint there would be dozens of people
complaining, but there aren't. In fact its just the opposite, many
satisfied users.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Nico Coesel]

Baron <baron@linuxmaniac.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel Inscribed thus:

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Jeff has a grudge ! In your case he achieved his aim...
If it was a legitimate complaint there would be dozens of people
complaining, but there aren't. In fact its just the opposite, many

Perhaps, but when there is smoke there is fire. Nobody has provided
any solid proof that Jeff is telling lies. Besides if he is telling
lies then he would have been sued by the owners of Eagle for slander a
long time ago.

Sometimes I need to push software or equipment to its limits and that
is where lesser products (even the ones with many happy users) fail.
When it comes to the risk of losing productivity (wasting time) I
don't take any chances.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Nico Coesel]

Peter Bennett <peterbb@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:43:53 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

Peter Bennett <peterbb@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:47:14 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 12/21/2011 08:21 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:23:23 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Thanks for the wisdom on the last newbie question. I managed to finish
a simple schematic (1 pHEMT, one SiGe bipolar, and one fast op amp--a
whole 22 parts altogether).

Now for a board layout, and the next question. I figured out how to set
the design rules to make a four-layer board with two cores, with prepreg
in between. Now I need to make a ground plane. So far, I've done:

set layer 2 to be net GND, supply plane box checked in the DISPLAY dialogue

POLY GND
draw the polygon
autoroute (just for test purposes, honest)

The autoroute fails because it's trying to put everything on layer 1,
and it ignores the ground plane almost entirely--it routes the grounds,
and it makes no vias or thermals in the ground plane. Except for
one--it makes a big hole under the Pin 1 mark on the IC package, which
is drawn as a wire in the package editor.

How do I get Eagle to recognize the ground plane as a ground plane?

How do I get the autorouter to use more than one layer?

Thanks

Phil Hobbs


I've only used Protel, so this may not apply to Eagle.

However, in Protel, anything you draw on a plane layer is not-copper,
so if I declared Layer 2 as a ground plane, then drew a polygon on it
covering the whole board, I would have _removed_ all the copper on
that layer - obviously, the autorouter would know not to use that
non-copper for ground connections.


That might be it, thanks.

Cheers

Phil "Gradually coming up to speed" Hobbs

Also, in Protel, I normally drew a wide track around the edge of the
board on the plane layers - this kept the plane copper from extending
to the edge of the board - this could be important, especially if the
board will be mounted in metal guides.

That sounds like a very odd and obfustigated way to get a copper pour.
AFAIK you can define copper pours in most programs by drawing a
polygon. In some software packages (Orcad Layout comes to mind) you
can define a layer as a plane so the layer if filled with copper by
default and anything you 'draw' in it is anti-copper.

I think you misunderstood me, and/or didn't read my first post.

I read it and I already had a feeling I pressed the send button too
quickly.

In Protel, you can define a layer as a plane (like Orcad, I expect),
but the copper plane extends to the horizon. You draw a wide track on
the board edge on the plane layer to keep the copper away from the
actual board edge.

You can also place filled polygons on the normal routing layers if you
want a large copper area there. If you place a filled polygon on a
plane layer, you get a hole in the plane.

Orcad Layout has a similar feature. I think I used it once on a PCB
but I have never used it since. Its not very usefull because it offers
very little control over where the copper goes. In most of my PCBs I
can't use a single plane anyway.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:03:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.

It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
promising CAD tool in the niche area. Plus they do not seem to believe
in the integrated suite concept yet that's clearly where the market is
going since years.

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.


Don't worry. Nothing bad happens if you do not exchange schematics with
shady folks who use cracked software. Since I only use it for business
this has never happened to me.

However, Eagle cannot do hierarchical schematics and that is a major
flaw if you do very large projects. Not so much in my case because most
clients use me to only design the really difficult chunks of a project.
RF, nanoscond stuff, low noise, things like that. So my schematics
rarely exceed 4-5 sheets which can be handled sans hierarchy. Designing,
for example, a whole ultrasound machine on Eagle would be next to
impossible.

If you only do the high-speed sections, how do you integrate your designs into
the larger boards?

....almost wishing for OrCAD again. <sniff>

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:03:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.
It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
promising CAD tool in the niche area. Plus they do not seem to believe
in the integrated suite concept yet that's clearly where the market is
going since years.
One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Don't worry. Nothing bad happens if you do not exchange schematics with
shady folks who use cracked software. Since I only use it for business
this has never happened to me.

However, Eagle cannot do hierarchical schematics and that is a major
flaw if you do very large projects. Not so much in my case because most
clients use me to only design the really difficult chunks of a project.
RF, nanoscond stuff, low noise, things like that. So my schematics
rarely exceed 4-5 sheets which can be handled sans hierarchy. Designing,
for example, a whole ultrasound machine on Eagle would be next to
impossible.

If you only do the high-speed sections, how do you integrate your designs into
the larger boards?

The client transcribes my schematic into theirs. Has to happen almost
regardless of which CAD system I use because there does not exist any
common standard but there are a dozen or so CAD systems in widespread
use. EDIF was just a big joke.

Sometimes I work on their CAD system.

...almost wishing for OrCAD again. <sniff

Same here ... <sniffle, sigh>

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John Devereux]

Baron <baron@linuxmaniac.net> writes:

Nico Coesel Inscribed thus:

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Jeff has a grudge ! In your case he achieved his aim...

I agree he has a grudge and he has been jumping all over any mention of
Eagle with this tale.

And there is nothing wrong with that! I appreciate it.

I have my own List of companies I will not deal with. I don't have the
time or the energy to sue them or even write letters to the complaints
department or whatever. But I can not deal with them and I can take
every opportunity to tell people about them when their name is
mentioned.

Slagging off companies on the internet is one of the few practical
methods of redress. How else are we supposed to discourage this sort of
high-handed contempt for legitimate buyers of their products?

Deliberately and permanantly breaking the design files of legitimate
users because they incorporate a circuit fragment from what turned out
to be a pirated copy? Years after the fact after an update?

Yes this would rarely happen in the corporate environment. So what?
Eagle is (was?) squarely aimed at the hobbiest/amateur user where such
sharing is not at all unlikely, look at all the LTSpice schematics that
get shared here. What would people here think if a rogue circuit posted
here could silently "infect" your installation, so that years later
after an update all your design files suddenly become permanently and
irretrievably useless? Not a by a random virus, but because of a
deliberate strategy by the people who sold you the program?

If it was a legitimate complaint there would be dozens of people
complaining, but there aren't. In fact its just the opposite, many
satisfied users.

--

John Devereux

 

[Jamie M]

On 12/20/2011 11:39 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I finally bit the bullet and got a copy of Eagle, because I need to do a
bunch of small proto boards. Initial impressions are positive, mostly
because it has a command line at the ready. Score.

The first device I tried creating is an Avago ATF35143 pHEMT, which
comes in a SC70-4 package with the source connected to pins 2 and 4.

There is no obvious way to tell Eagle that both 2 and 4 are connected to
the source.

What's the right way to do this?

Thanks

Phil Hobbs

Hi Phil,

I've been using eagle for about 10 years but never use the command
line! I know this was answered but I wouldn't recommend using the
'@' symbol to distinguish between the two source pins, usually I just
would name them "source1" and source2" etc, this is just my personal
preference since it keeps all pin info available.

ps. if you need a contractor to do eagle cad I would be interested!

cheers,
Jamie

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:12:26 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:03:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.
It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
promising CAD tool in the niche area. Plus they do not seem to believe
in the integrated suite concept yet that's clearly where the market is
going since years.
One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Don't worry. Nothing bad happens if you do not exchange schematics with
shady folks who use cracked software. Since I only use it for business
this has never happened to me.

However, Eagle cannot do hierarchical schematics and that is a major
flaw if you do very large projects. Not so much in my case because most
clients use me to only design the really difficult chunks of a project.
RF, nanoscond stuff, low noise, things like that. So my schematics
rarely exceed 4-5 sheets which can be handled sans hierarchy. Designing,
for example, a whole ultrasound machine on Eagle would be next to
impossible.

If you only do the high-speed sections, how do you integrate your designs into
the larger boards?


The client transcribes my schematic into theirs. Has to happen almost
regardless of which CAD system I use because there does not exist any
common standard but there are a dozen or so CAD systems in widespread
use. EDIF was just a big joke.

Or you use the same software as your client. This sorta negates any advantage
of your software having hierarchy, though, since you're stuck at the lowest
common denominator. EDIF works for what it was intended. Pretty pictures
ain't it.

Sometimes I work on their CAD system.

Have you ever looked at their license agreement? Cadence doesn't allow
off-site contractors to use the license.

...almost wishing for OrCAD again. <sniff


Same here ... <sniffle, sigh

I thought I'd never have anything nice to say about OrCAD.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:12:26 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:03:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JeffM wrote:
Doug White wrote:
If you are using the free version,
I thought it was restricted to two layers.

Without OPEN file formats and OPEN standards,
giving money to the payware vendors just finances the abuse.
It would be cool, yes, but I do not see that happen. With the gEDA guys
there is a very noticeable MS-phobia which will keep this otherwise
promising CAD tool in the niche area. Plus they do not seem to believe
in the integrated suite concept yet that's clearly where the market is
going since years.
One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a paid
CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy Eagle
but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Don't worry. Nothing bad happens if you do not exchange schematics with
shady folks who use cracked software. Since I only use it for business
this has never happened to me.

However, Eagle cannot do hierarchical schematics and that is a major
flaw if you do very large projects. Not so much in my case because most
clients use me to only design the really difficult chunks of a project.
RF, nanoscond stuff, low noise, things like that. So my schematics
rarely exceed 4-5 sheets which can be handled sans hierarchy. Designing,
for example, a whole ultrasound machine on Eagle would be next to
impossible.
If you only do the high-speed sections, how do you integrate your designs into
the larger boards?

The client transcribes my schematic into theirs. Has to happen almost
regardless of which CAD system I use because there does not exist any
common standard but there are a dozen or so CAD systems in widespread
use. EDIF was just a big joke.

Or you use the same software as your client. This sorta negates any advantage
of your software having hierarchy, though, since you're stuck at the lowest
common denominator. EDIF works for what it was intended. ...

Huh? So what good does it do?

... Pretty pictures ain't it.

No, the intention was that CAD data becomes exchangeable between CAD
system. That clearly did not materialize.

Sometimes I work on their CAD system.

Have you ever looked at their license agreement? Cadence doesn't allow
off-site contractors to use the license.

I know. That's why I had to rent a license earlier this year. The reason
was not me being a consultant but because the company was not in the US
and they obviously have the ancient turf-protection sales system.

...almost wishing for OrCAD again. <sniff

Same here ... <sniffle, sigh

I thought I'd never have anything nice to say about OrCAD.

Not about the new Orcad, I personally would never buy that. It pretty
much broke the record in the number of crashes per week on my computer.
Orcad-SDT, in contrast, was of cast-iron quality. Then they were bought
and the new owners appear to have broken it. Happens a lot in the world
of software.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Baron]

John Devereux Inscribed thus:

Baron <baron@linuxmaniac.net> writes:

Nico Coesel Inscribed thus:

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a
paid CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy
Eagle but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Jeff has a grudge ! In your case he achieved his aim...

I agree he has a grudge and he has been jumping all over any mention
of Eagle with this tale.

And there is nothing wrong with that! I appreciate it.

If you are going to slag a company off its only fair to tell both sides
of the tale. Jeff isn't going to admit that he was lazy or dishonest
in the first place.

I have my own List of companies I will not deal with. I don't have the
time or the energy to sue them or even write letters to the complaints
department or whatever. But I can not deal with them and I can take
every opportunity to tell people about them when their name is
mentioned.

So do I ! But I don't make a career out of it.

Slagging off companies on the internet is one of the few practical
methods of redress. How else are we supposed to discourage this sort
of high-handed contempt for legitimate buyers of their products?

If there are good grounds for doing so, fine.

Deliberately and permanantly breaking the design files of legitimate
users because they incorporate a circuit fragment from what turned out
to be a pirated copy? Years after the fact after an update?

I've used many circuit fragments from various unaccountable sources
without any issues what so ever ! So I find Jeff's complaint
as "creating a bandwagon" !

Yes this would rarely happen in the corporate environment. So what?
Eagle is (was?) squarely aimed at the hobbiest/amateur user where such
sharing is not at all unlikely, look at all the LTSpice schematics
that get shared here. What would people here think if a rogue circuit
posted here could silently "infect" your installation, so that years
later after an update all your design files suddenly become
permanently and irretrievably useless? Not a by a random virus, but
because of a deliberate strategy by the people who sold you the
program?

I've seen no evidence of a deliberate strategy, but if it has occurred
because of a side effect of protecting intellectual property, then that
is very unfortunate ! I can understand Jeff's angst.

If it was a legitimate complaint there would be dozens of people
complaining, but there aren't. In fact its just the opposite, many
satisfied users.

Seasons Greetings to All.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Baron]

JeffM Inscribed thus:

Baron wrote:
Jeff isn't going to admit
that he was lazy or dishonest in the first place.

Eat shit and die, asswipe.
If you're going to comment on the topic,
at least become informed about what the facts are.
Ignorant dumbass.

Point proved !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[John Devereux]

Baron <baron@linuxmaniac.net> writes:

John Devereux Inscribed thus:

Baron <baron@linuxmaniac.net> writes:

Nico Coesel Inscribed thus:

One of my customers used Geda and PCB to create a design. IMHO a
paid CAD package is more productive. Jeff's warnings made me not buy
Eagle but spend the cash on a second hand CAD package instead.

Jeff has a grudge ! In your case he achieved his aim...

I agree he has a grudge and he has been jumping all over any mention
of Eagle with this tale.

And there is nothing wrong with that! I appreciate it.

If you are going to slag a company off its only fair to tell both sides
of the tale. Jeff isn't going to admit that he was lazy or dishonest
in the first place.

(My rant was not aimed at you particularly by the way)

IIRC I don't actually think Jeff was even directly affected, let alone
"lazy" or "dishonest". So that is uncalled for.

I have my own List of companies I will not deal with. I don't have the
time or the energy to sue them or even write letters to the complaints
department or whatever. But I can not deal with them and I can take
every opportunity to tell people about them when their name is
mentioned.

So do I ! But I don't make a career out of it.

Slagging off companies on the internet is one of the few practical
methods of redress. How else are we supposed to discourage this sort
of high-handed contempt for legitimate buyers of their products?

If there are good grounds for doing so, fine.

Deliberately and permanantly breaking the design files of legitimate
users because they incorporate a circuit fragment from what turned out
to be a pirated copy? Years after the fact after an update?

I've used many circuit fragments from various unaccountable sources
without any issues what so ever ! So I find Jeff's complaint
as "creating a bandwagon" !

Actually to me this supports the argument that the companies behaviour
is reprehensible. There *are* people that, in good faith, use circuit
fragments from anaccountable sources. What would you think if the next
update rendered all those designs permanenly useless?

Yes this would rarely happen in the corporate environment. So what?
Eagle is (was?) squarely aimed at the hobbiest/amateur user where such
sharing is not at all unlikely, look at all the LTSpice schematics
that get shared here. What would people here think if a rogue circuit
posted here could silently "infect" your installation, so that years
later after an update all your design files suddenly become
permanently and irretrievably useless? Not a by a random virus, but
because of a deliberate strategy by the people who sold you the
program?

I've seen no evidence of a deliberate strategy, but if it has occurred
because of a side effect of protecting intellectual property, then that
is very unfortunate ! I can understand Jeff's angst.

If it was a legitimate complaint there would be dozens of people
complaining, but there aren't. In fact its just the opposite, many
satisfied users.


Seasons Greetings to All.

Likewise!

--

John Devereux

 

[JeffM]

Baron wrote:

Jeff isn't going to admit
that he was lazy or dishonest in the first place.

Eat shit and die, asswipe.

If you're going to comment on the topic,
at least become informed about what the facts are.
Ignorant dumbass.