Why is KiCAD under Linux such a heap of crap?

[homebrew]

<RANT MODE ON>

I'm really pissed off by KiCAD under Linux!
Why on earth is it so much broken?

1) Default KiCAD under Ubuntu 14.04 completely broken
    -> Known bug and probably Ubuntus fault (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2221823&p=13012571#post13012571)

2) Ok, used the compile-by-script method from the download section of the KiCAD website. Two hours compile time!
3) No footprints available. Why? Because I was working offline! WTF? Ok, at least there is a session cache but ... AARRGH! Ok, handy eevblog-forum is a great help here and someone posted a python script to manually download all the git repositories for the components.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/open-source-kicad-geda/kicad-new-footprint-libraries-(-pretty)-packet/)

4) I CANNOT PRINT A SINGLE SHEET OF MY SCHEMATIC!!! And that is a known bug in KiCAD for over two years!!!
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1089027)

An I have not talked about using it under OSX. I gave that idea up very fast!

</RANT MODE OFF>

But as usual under M$-Windows everything works like a treat:
A nice installer, done in some minutes.
Components, all there, including footprints.
And I can print! Woohoo!

But I don't want to use Windows anymore !!!!!!!!!!!

To my perception this is a very bad attitude for a development team that does open-source-software. It shouldn't be such a pain in the ass to use it under a free operating system!

[Wh1sper]

hhm, I'm using it with debian wheezy and tried version installed out of the wheezy repository and some of the ready build packages.
But I never felt the need of printing, so I'm biased.

I'm really wonder what is running under w$ as usual.
You mean the shitty excel or the bloody shitty outlook? This is my daily annoyance.
You are right this is bad as usual 

Maybe trying another distribution could be solution for you.

[Bored@Work]

<RANT MODE ON>

I'm really pissed off by KiCAD under Linux!
Why on earth is it so much broken?

That is not Linux-specific. I find it equally broke under Linux and Windows. Their footprint, sorry, their fscking "module" management goes on my tits. Their sluggish screen repainting, their user interface, their broken idea of a one-way workflow, their constantly breaking something that worked for the last few years, their invention of an own terminology, ...

And the worst: They just don't learn.

1) Default KiCAD under Ubuntu 14.04 completely broken
    -> Known bug and probably Ubuntus fault

Also KiCad's fault. When you make building your shit annoying then package maintainers rather not bother to update the package. And, if they would really care, they would not only improve the build procedures, but actually maintain the package on their own. Instead of, for example, doing that shit git-based footprint, sorry, fucking "module" management.

[homebrew]

Their footprint, sorry, their fscking "module" management goes on my tits. Their sluggish screen repainting, their user interface, their broken idea of a one-way workflow, their constantly breaking something that worked for the last few years, their invention of an own terminology, ...

And the worst: They just don't learn.

Well, that might be their attitude of developing an EDA tool. I can only compare it to Eagle which I used for the last 15 years (!OMG!). The management of the footprints is a big improvement compared to the eagle workflow, where you have a gazillion copies of the same footprint in each library ... That is soo bullshit, too!

I also like the Idea of not bothering footprint selection when I do the schematic. But sadly It is also flawed in KiCAD as you have to select a symbol with the correct pinout for a particular package... Think about Atmegas in DIP or QFP packages for example with their different pinouts that you have to have in mind when doing your schematics. Thus in KiCAD you have to create two identical schematic symbols for the same component depending on its package variants. Flawed ...

The rest you are talking about equally applies to Eagle: Very logical example ... use the cut symbol to perform a copying action ... for over 15 years at least!

Maybe the are all not learning, because they still don't have to...

[AndyC_772]

Think about Atmegas in DIP or QFP packages for example with their different pinouts that you have to have in mind when doing your schematics. Thus in KiCAD you have to create two identical schematic symbols for the same component depending on its package variants. Flawed ...

This is very good practice. Two similar devices in different packages are different components with have different part numbers, and the fact that they're electrically similar is irrelevant - especially once you've designed one of them into a schematic and given the BoM to a customer.

Is it really a big deal to have both variants in a library? Really?

I used KiCad for a design a few years ago, being the best of the free tools I could find at the time. I soon gave up on it, though, when stupid, unforgivable bugs started showing up in essential features like BoM export. The Linux version had some fatal flaws, while the Windows version had others. I ended up having to dual boot and use both versions to complete the design.

If I'd carried on, I'd have easily incurred the price of a copy of Orcad just in wasted time.

Does Kicad still have the ridiculous, painful limitation that a schematic can only consist of one page at each level of hierarchy?

[homebrew]

This is very good practice. Two similar devices in different packages are different components with have different part numbers, and the fact that they're electrically similar is irrelevant - especially once you've designed one of them into a schematic and given the BoM to a customer.

Is it really a big deal to have both variants in a library? Really?

No, It is not a big deal. But from a theoretical perspective a schematic should be a more abstract model of your product than the pcb-design. And when talking about pinouts and package variants during schematic capturing you are mixing the two levels of abstraction. 
Of course at some point in the design process it is necessary to decide upon the particular part you are going to use and -of course- this should than be back-annotated to the schematic.

[Mechatrommer]

<RANT MODE ON>
I'm really pissed off by KiCAD under Linux!

man i thought its only me when running it under windows. makes me wonder then under what OS KiCAD specialized into?

[AndyC_772]

But from a theoretical perspective a schematic should be a more abstract model of your product than the pcb-design. And when talking about pinouts and package variants during schematic capturing you are mixing the two levels of abstraction.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one. I regard the schematic as the absolutely definitive, specific reference document that prescribes which components are used in a design and how they are connected.

When I send a customer a schematic, I accept responsibility for that design working if, and only if, it is manufactured using the exact components I've specified. Swap in a cheaper alternative for this, or a different package for that, and you're building something which is no longer my design - and unless you checked with me first, you can't blame me if your part overheats, fails EMC or dies within a year.

Therefore, my design workflow begins and ends with uniquely identified components, whose specifications I check to ensure they will work in a given circuit. Once a circuit makes it off my whiteboard, there is no abstraction.

[jaxbird]

...
man i thought its only me when running it under windows. makes me wonder then under what OS KiCAD specialized into?

From an objective point of view, it makes sense to put ~95% of the effort into Windows releases:



http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

[mrflibble]

From an objective point of view, it makes sense to put ~95% of the effort into Windows releases:

If those stats are representative for the target demographic, sure.

[jaxbird]

If those stats are representative for the target demographic, sure.

These are global, where Linux is of very insignificant size. They might have some download stats that are more representative, but still I'd be surprised if Windows doesn't count at least 75% of their user base.

[homebrew]

From an objective point of view, it makes sense to put ~95% of the effort into Windows releases:

Why? They are not commercial. They don't earn money for providing their software. Their development effort is mostly driven by the idea of providing an open system. If I would develop software with this ideology I would naturally also target a free operating system as a reference platform.

I also don't buy the argument that 95% of the hackers, makers and hobbyists are using windows platforms. Maybe more a 60/40 ratio or even less. Companies are another story as they usually don't give a sh*t about open source EDA tools. They just buy one of the shelf...

Therefore I can't understand why their reference platform is apparently M$-Windows...

BTW, wouldn't that be a nice idea for a dedicated Ubuntu version? There are versions for musicians for example (Ubuntu Studio http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/releases/14.04/release/).
Why not make a version for electronic engineers, with all the stuff preconfigured like cross-compilers, KiCAD, gEDA, qcad, simulators etc. etc.

[jaxbird]

Why? They are not commercial. They don't earn money for providing their software. Their development effort is mostly driven by the idea of providing an open system. If I would develop software with this ideology I would naturally also target a free operating system as a reference platform.
...

Making a piece of software, surely your goal is as large a user base as possible. Otherwise they should target something like MINIX (designed by Andrew Tanenbaum, probably the first open source OS, and the main inspiration for Linux), but it's not very popular these days, so to get a larger user base it makes more sense to target Windows, Linux and OSX.

And it makes most sense to distribute the effort based on popularity.

[Bored@Work]

BTW, wouldn't that be a nice idea for a dedicated Ubuntu version? There are versions for musicians for example (Ubuntu Studio http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/releases/14.04/release/).
Why not make a version for electronic engineers, with all the stuff preconfigured like cross-compilers, KiCAD, gEDA, qcad, simulators etc. etc.

Ubuntu UER, but they gave up after a few releases.

Fedora also has something, I don't think it is maintained recently.

[homebrew]

Making a piece of software, surely your goal is as large a user base as possible.

Now that went straight into my heart as a software engineer!

No it is not, it never was and it will never be! Having the largest possible user base is something for marketing people.
Having identified your target users and designing a software according to their particular needs is what software engineering should be all about. The larger the user base is, the more difficult it becomes to design something that actually gets accepted and is appreciated. "One size fits all" most often does not work!

However, reading all the rants about KiCAD maybe those people sadly might in deed work towards that goal ...

[jancumps]

However, reading all the rants about KiCAD maybe those people sadly might in deed work towards that goal ...

1 happy user here on both Windows and Linux.

[jaxbird]

Now that went straight into my heart as a software engineer!

No it is not, it never was and it will never be! Having the largest possible user base is something for marketing people.
Having identified your target users and designing a software according to their particular needs is what software engineering should be all about. The larger the user base is, the more difficult it becomes to design something that actually gets accepted and is appreciated. "One size fits all" most often does not work!

However, reading all the rants about KiCAD maybe those people sadly might in deed work towards that goal ...

So you'd prefer developing for some obscure OS with a tiny number of users?

Using that logic they should target only e.g. MINIX (mentioned in my previous post, google for details) as it is the original open source OS. Sure you might only have 10 users, but that does not matter?

Why would you not want to target the largest possible user base available?

If you are indeed a professional software developer, you do need a reasonable number paying users to provide you with a salary, or you wont be able to pay your rent and food.

[homebrew]

So you'd prefer developing for some obscure OS with a tiny number of users?

Using that logic they should target only e.g. MINIX (mentioned in my previous post, google for details) as it is the original open source OS. Sure you might only have 10 users, but that does not matter?

If you are indeed a professional software developer, you do need a reasonable number paying users to provide you with a salary, or you wont be able to pay your rent and food.

No, I don't. But I prefer to know the specific requirements of the application's target users and design an artifact matching their needs. For me that would be a successful design. It has nothing to do with the size of the user group, except that his goal is harder to reach if the group size increases.

You mentioned the paying and salary aspect. Sure you need to earn money. But in an open-source context there are no paying users. At least not for the code. Maybe you get donations if you are lucky. If you don't have funding than this type of development is for your spare time unless you work in an academic context. To me, there are no other reason than money or reputation to argument the desire for a large user group. Even not for quality (think of openssl)!

And no, KiCAD should not shoot for MINIX. MINIX never was designed as an operating system for the average user. It was specifically designed as an educational system for Tannenbaum's lectures on operating system development. I'm glad you brought this example as it clearly shows how successful a design can be with the right target users in mind. Thousands of students read his book about MINIX (including myself) and one of them created Linux in the end. What a great success! Had the aim of the project been to maximise the user group size, Tannenbaum might have been better off developing a DOS clone instead...

However KiCAD does the other way round! They already have found their niche and have developed a pretty decent system that could be working on other platforms than Windows equally well for a large group of users. But instead carrying about those platforms they willingly accept to shrink their community by pissing off non-Windows user (Yes, under OSX it is equally bad as on Linux).

As I already said: Building open source software that is only useable on closed source systems is a contradiction to me ... regardless of the size of potential users ...

Anyway, happy coding ...

[zapta]

Using that logic they should target only e.g. MINIX (mentioned in my previous post, google for details) as it is the original open source OS. Sure you might only have 10 users, but that does not matter?

If the claim to support MINIX it should work well on MIMIX, even it has only 1 user. If they don't have the resources they should drop it from the supported OS's list.

[jaxbird]

I'm happy my post made you read up on Minix  Just used as an example, but as far as I know, it does have a production version, so it can be considered a fully featured OS.

I think there are some misconceptions on the origins of open source software, it is a huge (multi billion $) industry, the majority of the code is produced by paid developers and the money is usually earned back by selling hardware or added services (consulting etc) .. It's only a tiny portion developed by individuals in their spare time.

But if you want a better Linux KiCad, you could join the team and use your spare time to fix all the bugs instead of complaining about them

[hammy]

But if you want a better Linux KiCad, you could join the team and use your spare time to fix all the bugs instead of complaining about them

killer phrase 

[AndyC_772]

the majority of the code is produced by paid developers and the money is usually earned back by selling hardware or added services (consulting etc)

To be fair, this does explain a lot. Good quality, reliable, intuitive and capable software doesn't generally need support. Software that's difficult to use, buggy or downright perverse in the way it works, does.

If fixing problems and improving my product would actively cut off my revenue stream, I wouldn't fix them either.

But if you want a better Linux KiCad, you could join the team and use your spare time to fix all the bugs instead of complaining about them

I'm sure this is intended in jest, but it does bring up another very important point. An unreliable car that comes with a toolbox in the boot is not a substitute for a reliable car. However helpful other owners might be at helping you diagnose problems - assuming you're in the slightest bit mechanically minded to begin with - they're not much consolation when you're stuck by the side of the motorway in the pouring rain with smoke pouring out from under the bonnet, again.

[jaxbird]

But if you want a better Linux KiCad, you could join the team and use your spare time to fix all the bugs instead of complaining about them

killer phrase 

Why is that?

You want high quality free software, but you don't want to contribute anything?

[Bored@Work]

But if you want a better Linux KiCad, you could join the team and use your spare time to fix all the bugs instead of complaining about them

killer phrase 

Why is that?

Because it is the standard response from open-source programmers when they want to tell you to shut up and fuck off. First they make it incredibly hard to contribute (e.g. because the software is hard to build, convoluted and undocumented, they have hundreds of obscure rules how to submit and then ignore or reject 99% of all submissions), then they tell you to fuck off when you tell them they have a problem but don't rub their back exactly the way they want.

[homebrew]

But if you want a better Linux KiCad, you could join the team and use your spare time to fix all the bugs instead of complaining about them

killer phrase 

Why is that?

Because that demonstrates the attitude of behaving irresponsible for the software one creates just because it is labeled open-source. Like openssl two moth ago:
Oh we fucked up the entire privacy of the whole internet ... sorry your fault! You didn't contribute!

That is a bullshit argument! From an end user perspective (thus not an active developer of that particular system) you almost never directly contribute, neither in open source, nor in closed source. The effort of diving into the code to fix a single bug is just too high if you are not a regular developer of that system, especially if those bugs are non-trivial. It would cost you a large amount of time, where the person familiarised with the source code would find a solution in minutes ...
 
However, you can still write bug reports and point the developers to the defects. But if the developers don't care about them for years ...
Now what should you do?