Author Topic: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant  (Read 16436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« on: April 22, 2016, 02:25:14 pm »
Board size license limitation: 80*100mm; Next step for money, 100*160mm;
We have +6dB step in board area. Fine.
You shell out 168€ for that, non-commercial . Okay. Bought that around christmas '15.

Next step is 4000*4000mm
thats +60dB stepup in area for ~1600€
 :wtf:

Keep calm... There is this Learn Professional license.
Drop the autorouter f() (who uses that, right?) and you get 16layers and 4000mm*4000mm board size for 582€
I could possibly do that, maybe (don't tell my wife).

I write to CadSoftEagle Germany to get my license Make Personal upgraded, and basically they tell me to drop dead.
Here's the answer, and I quote:
"Sorry, but for individuals without commercial use we have the EAGLE Make licenses only."

 :rant:
Let me rephrase for all of you (potential) Eagle users: When you are an individual user without commercial use, your maximum board size with Eagle is 160*100mm. Period.

@Cadsoft: Why the hell can't you come up with a somewhat acceptable licensing model? Or are you specifically directing people to these torrent sites because this is exactly what it looks like. Say it out aloud then! And post a link while you're at it.

Seems I've been this stupid idiot that takes the trouble to learn the tool, pay some money for it in "good faith" that I can upgrade later because the vendor is reasonable, and then end up being extorted for money when the requirements grow beyond the measly 100*160mm board size. |O
I won't need a 4x4m board size, ever. But a A4/letter size that you can easily produce at home would sure help.

I will go and start buying these Z-Energeia wipes now. Perhaps these guys offer a more reasonable upgrade model.
(see the eevblog #870 for clue.)
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3467
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pm »
I'm not an Eagle fanboy, but suspect it isn't quite as bad as you portray.  If you contact Eagle asking for the Learn Professional package I am sure you will be served.  Probably will require you to uninstall your current package and install the new package fresh.

I suspect what happened is that a new or dull employee didn't think flexibly, or thought that you wanted some form of discount on the Learn Professional package based on the money you have previously paid.
 

Online Andy Watson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1732
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2016, 02:55:44 pm »
Many years ago I stopped using Eagle for exactly this reason. There was, and it appears still is, no way to get beyond a certain board size without jumping straight to top of the range, maximum cost licensing model.
 

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2016, 05:26:02 pm »
I'm not an Eagle fanboy, but suspect it isn't quite as bad as you portray.  If you contact Eagle asking for the Learn Professional package I am sure you will be served.  Probably will require you to uninstall your current package and install the new package fresh.

I suspect what happened is that a new or dull employee didn't think flexibly, or thought that you wanted some form of discount on the Learn Professional package based on the money you have previously paid.

I specifically asked for an upgrade to Learn Professional. They could've said no upgrade, full license. Sure, maybe.
But they specifically tell what I quoted, that no license for personal non-comm. use beyond the Make version.

Oh well, the person that answered to my enquiry is working there for more than five years. At least from what a quick google search reveals.
The eagle web says for Learn: "in a non-commercial educational environment or institution". I'm sure the CadSoft German office follows this with nothing less than the famous German precision.

I guess it would be equally stupid to pretend to be "educational environment... "
After all, what's the difference whether I (or CadSoft itself) hack the organisation or the program code? No difference, and this is why I asked CadSoft for a link to torrent in the original post.

 
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 05:45:30 pm by k4rlhp »
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2016, 05:42:28 pm »
Probably you can not update (with discount).
But you probably can still purchase the standalone package for full price.
 

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2016, 05:57:30 pm »
Probably you can not update (with discount).
But you probably can still purchase the standalone package for full price.

BTW, the cadsoft of site has upgrade functionality built in so one can (?) upgrade online.
When I entered my SN to the site, it told me to contact sales. I did. And got that answer I quoted above.

I'm sure they will happily sell you (me) the professional license, what do they care if you actually sell your board or not, they got the money.

The stupid thing is I'm willing to pay some because I appreciate updates, community and the work they have otherwise done.
But the jump they impose is beyond unreasonable, it's insane.

What we have is your classic management+marketing epic fail. The guys in production have done a nice job and the bozos upstairs blow it up because "thats the way we do it"
 

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2016, 06:05:34 pm »
Hehe, it just occurred to me...

While building my lab recently, I listened to the amphour podcasts from ep#1 up to 120 something.
I think it's already from some very early episodes that cadsoft has got their fair share due to the licensing model.

That's like 5 years ago... So these guys haven't really learned anything this whole time...

Now what does that tell you?
 

Online Fred27

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: gb
    • Fred's blog
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2016, 06:41:16 pm »
I definitely saw a post (somewhere) about a current 30% discount on Eagle until the end of this month. Can't find it right now though. Perhaps that would help.

Found it:
http://forum.43oh.com/index.php?/topic/9560-30%-off-any-new-Eagle-license-(until-April-30th-2016)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 07:45:32 pm by Fred27 »
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3467
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2016, 08:10:56 pm »
Hehe, it just occurred to me...

While building my lab recently, I listened to the amphour podcasts from ep#1 up to 120 something.
I think it's already from some very early episodes that cadsoft has got their fair share due to the licensing model.

That's like 5 years ago... So these guys haven't really learned anything this whole time...

Now what does that tell you?

It is interesting that anyone other than Cadsoft can define a fair share.  Taking your business elsewhere if you think they are too greedy is fine, convincing yourself that it is alright to take their product from a warez site is another thing altogether. 

The fact that I think the music industry is greedy doesn't make it OK for me to take and share .mp3s.
 

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2016, 10:14:54 pm »

It is interesting that anyone other than Cadsoft can define a fair share.  Taking your business elsewhere if you think they are too greedy is fine, convincing yourself that it is alright to take their product from a warez site is another thing altogether. 


I'm not for using warez, that's why I'm even bothering to write about it.
People using wares won't really care what they charge for Eagle.

This is the most idiotic part, Cadsoft keeps an artificial void in the licensing model where you basically have a 1000x jump in some metric.

But this does not hurt those who are okay with wares.
It ONLY bothers those who really are willing to pay for things they use.

True, 4x4m is not a real size anyone uses but it's undeniable that the jump form 160EUR to 1600EUR is missing a step or two.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3467
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2016, 11:45:23 pm »
More steps would be nice, but you were the one that brought up BitTorrent sites.  I know that not all are illicit, but a great many are.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2016, 08:53:40 am »
Ah well here is your solution you are an educational institution as soon as you put up one eagle lesson on youtube. You educate people through videos. Solved.  ;)

I had similar experiences with other firms esp software houses that sell compilers.
Some  do totally nothing for non commercial users in price, just ask the full 100% each year which comes up to thousands of €'s which is ofcourse completely rediculous. Others think they are so great offering you a 20% discount not realizing that this is still pricewise in a different galaxy.

So in this regard eaglesoft is a really good pricemodel, they do offer hobbieists an affordable license.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30635
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2016, 09:01:05 am »
People ask me why I don't support Eagle, the license model is the reason.
A single sided PCB (commercial) with 2 parts on it that is bigger than 160mm costs huge money.
 
The following users thanked this post: ivan747

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2016, 10:40:12 am »
What is a cheaper alternative then?
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10788
  • Country: lv
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2016, 11:01:16 am »
What is a cheaper alternative then?
For example Labcenter Proteus. For private users they give 20% discount.
http://www.labcenter.com/products/pcb/pcb_overview.cfm
http://www.labcenter.com/ordering/cprices.cfm
It's not necessarily cheaper for everyone because of the different needs, but it has much more reasonable licence model. Also it would be insane to buy $1600 eagle licence because you can get more capable tool cheaper.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2016, 11:16:59 am »
For example Labcenter Proteus. For private users they give 20% discount.
No they don't! Same rules as Eagle, you need proof of scholarship or educational institution:
Quote
Single User Pricing
Single user educational prices are discounted at a flat 20% from the equivalent commercial price. You can obtain a license costing via our online wizard or by reference to the commercial price list.
Proof of academic status is required prior to purchase - please contact us for more information or to place an order
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30635
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2016, 11:30:21 am »
What is a cheaper alternative then?

KiCAD
Altium Circuit Maker
DesignSpark
are all free

DIPtrace if you want to get around the size limit thing, but they use pin count instead. About the same price for full version though.
http://diptrace.com/buy/online-store/
Personally I'd rather have a pin count restriction than a size restriction.
 

Offline hammy

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2016, 11:30:54 am »
... please contact us for more information or to place an order

Asking is the key.  ;)
 

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2016, 06:26:07 pm »
A single sided PCB (commercial) with 2 parts on it that is bigger than 160mm costs huge money.
Do you mean fully assembled PCB cost not just a PCB?

PCB house prices drop to minimum at much larger sizes, for example at eurocircuit the cheapest per area is 580x425mm, which is coincidentally about half the cost per area compared to the 100x160mm limitation.

K

 

Online Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Country: ch
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2016, 06:32:29 pm »
No, he obviously meant about the price of the tool - he was pointing out that if you want to make a PCB bigger than 160mm with Eagle you have to buy the $1600 license regardless of how simple your PCB design is, which makes little sense.
 

Offline k4rlhp

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 45
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2016, 06:45:12 pm »
People ask me why I don't support Eagle, the license model is the reason.

Agreed, pin count or process resolution would likely be more indicative of the requirements.
Essentially, doing a BGA at home will take some effort and likely a cost to match in other equipment, pro or not.

If I were CadSoft, I would put an additional step in between pro and entry at lets say €650+VAT for Schematic+board+autorouter and with a 320*200 limitation. Easily produced at home and on par with some other equipment in the lab and in line with PCB house capabilities. At worst they can just drop the size limitation, put non-commercial use limitation and it's doable within a few days, minimum investment required.

So go figure, why CadSoft has such a hard time wrapping their heads around this licensing.
It's not like they aren't losing any customers over this.

I hope cadsoft is now happy and wildly rich  :bullshit: with the €160 I paid them!
 :clap:
Because I'm learning KiCad now.

K
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 06:48:24 pm by k4rlhp »
 

Offline hendorog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1477
  • Country: nz
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2016, 04:31:09 am »
EagleCad are not worthy.

I made the mistake of purchasing in April without realising there was a discount on - doh..

Within a couple of minutes I discovered the discount and emailed them. They ignored what I wrote and responded with an invoice.
I emailed again a couple of days later, and they ignored that email as well.

My own stupid fault of course. However combined with the limitations mentioned in the thread, and other weirdness, I realise I made a mistake committing to them.
I'll be moving to KiCAD.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30635
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2016, 06:21:40 am »
The stupid licensing is the reason why I have not even considered using Eagle.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2016, 11:23:07 am »
The stupid licensing is the reason why I have not even considered using Eagle.
The reason they have a very affordable license for hobbieists is the main reason I did choose for Eagle and I wish more software companies, esp. the big brand Arm compiler companies would offer something similar for non profit users.
 

Offline mmagin

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 613
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2016, 09:18:05 pm »
The stupid licensing is the reason why I have not even considered using Eagle.
The reason they have a very affordable license for hobbieists is the main reason I did choose for Eagle and I wish more software companies, esp. the big brand Arm compiler companies would offer something similar for non profit users.

These kind of license models really kind of suck when you want to move from pure hobbyist use to small-scale commercial use.  You've learned a tool, it works for you, then you want to say, sell a little adapter board to a few dozen people and you're supposed to cough up a lot of money.  I'd much rather get nothing for free, but get to use my current licensed level of functionality for any purpose.
 

Offline ebclr

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1997
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2016, 02:31:04 pm »
For hobbyst Have 2 nice and free options

www.circuitmaker.com
http://www.pcbweb.com/

If you need more, it's time to open the safe
 

Offline XFDDesign

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 435
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2016, 04:44:42 pm »
I actually use Eagle pro, so that's my disclaimer.

There is another fault that can burn you as well in the licensing model. The "standard" version which is still area limited to the 160x100, is also layer limited to 4. So even within the area constraint, you can't do a 6 layer board or more, even if you needed to. It's a double-whammy.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2016, 09:06:22 am »
i'm using eagle, i bought the maker edition (non-commercial for individuals) - 6layers with 160mmx100mm area.
i'm not getting the point why would a hobbyist need a bigger area ? nowadays with small footprint components you can fit a pretty complex project to a 160x100.

and let me tell you a dirty trick - if you need a bigger pcb you can still make your own library with half sized components (yes create all the components you need as half-sized) and enlarge the board by a factor of 2 when printing the transparencies. this way you can easily make a 320mmx200mm board.

furthermore - i don't know how you guys are making your PCBs, but my laser printer is A4, i'm buying Riston and Dynamask in 30cm wide rolls and buying FR4 in A4 sized cuts. considering the effective print area of the printer and counting in 20-30mm of space on each side of the board to comfortably work with the photo-resist and solder mask films... i end up with something like 240mmx150mm technical limit for a pcb i can manufacture at home, which is not much bigger than the eagle limit.

if you want's to switch to "commercial" then you need a business license to do you commercial business and you can't upgrade your personal license anyway ( you can't re-sell you personal license to the business you are going to run ).
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2016, 09:43:49 am »
i'm using eagle, i bought the maker edition (non-commercial for individuals) - 6layers with 160mmx100mm area.
i'm not getting the point why would a hobbyist need a bigger area ? nowadays with small footprint components you can fit a pretty complex project to a 160x100.
The only time I ran into this area problem was when I wanted to design a long led strip my self. If you want to make a 50cm long led strip or larger, then the only choice you have with the current limitation is to make it multiple strips of 160mm and solder them together with wires. The problem arises when you only have one ledcontroller and hw on each strip and mechanically it is not ideal either. For the rest I agree, hobbieists could live with that board size limitation.

Quote
and let me tell you a dirty trick - if you need a bigger pcb you can still make your own library with half sized components (yes create all the components you need as half-sized) and enlarge the board by a factor of 2 when printing the transparencies. this way you can easily make a 320mmx200mm board.
Eeeeeh that is dirty, I am not going to go there.

Quote
i don't know how you guys are making your PCBs
Sent the Gerbers to China and let them make it professionally, I love that this is possible these days, all that problems I have had in the past with over/under-UV-exposure, over/under-etching, no via's, no soldermask, no silkscreen.
No thank you, been there done that and left it behind me  :)
 

Offline komet

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Country: ch
  • Shenzhen Retroencabulator Mfg. Co.
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2016, 09:58:42 am »
Has everybody forgotten about the time that an "incorrectly licensed" Eagle would hack your computer and send your details to CadSoft so that they could take you to court? That alone is reason enough to never give them any money ever again.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2016, 10:15:43 am »

Quote
Quote
i don't know how you guys are making your PCBs
all that problems I have had in the past with over/under-UV-exposure, over/under-etching, no via's, no soldermask, no silkscreen.
No thank you, been there done that and left it behind me  :)
only valid point is the vias (but you can solder a wire to all vias and it's ok i'm doing it like that) .
riston dry film photoresist is the stuff used in fabs as well - no issues with under/over exposure like with those positive presensitized copper clads.  dynamask is the dry film soldermask - a perfect one capable of very fine details.
if you need silkscreen - white uv curable paint if your friend (but i'm lazy to add more steps to have the silkscreen)
i have my 2 sided board ready to use including soldermask in less than 1 hour - don't have to wait weeks.

so for me the Eagle + making boards at home is the ideal combo ;)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 10:18:56 am by rob77 »
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2016, 10:18:02 am »
Has everybody forgotten about the time that an "incorrectly licensed" Eagle would hack your computer and send your details to CadSoft so that they could take you to court? That alone is reason enough to never give them any money ever again.

so you hate everyone who protects his property ? so if someone robs you , then you're ok with it because he's just "incorrectly behaved" ?  :-DD
 

Offline komet

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Country: ch
  • Shenzhen Retroencabulator Mfg. Co.
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2016, 10:30:26 am »
Has everybody forgotten about the time that an "incorrectly licensed" Eagle would hack your computer and send your details to CadSoft so that they could take you to court? That alone is reason enough to never give them any money ever again.

so you hate everyone who protects his property ? so if someone robs you , then you're ok with it because he's just "incorrectly behaved" ?  :-DD

There are lawful methods of protecting one's property and unlawful ones. CadSoft, if I remember correctly, were sentenced.
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3327
  • Country: de
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2016, 05:03:50 pm »
Has everybody forgotten about the time that an "incorrectly licensed" Eagle would hack your computer and send your details to CadSoft so that they could take you to court? That alone is reason enough to never give them any money ever again.

There are lawful methods of protecting one's property and unlawful ones. CadSoft, if I remember correctly, were sentenced.

I am not aware of this (either Eagle "phoning home" or CadSoft being sentenced for that). Would you have any links or other references which support these allegations?
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18580
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2016, 06:04:59 pm »
I've also read stories about Eagle nuking files if the file was edited by an illegal copy during it's lifetime or used a component created by an illegal version even though the version the user was using was legit. According to the particular user Cadsoft was unwilling to unlock/repair the file and just told him "tough luck, GFY and beware of other people's files and libraries from now on".
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline komet

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Country: ch
  • Shenzhen Retroencabulator Mfg. Co.
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2016, 06:15:27 pm »
Has everybody forgotten about the time that an "incorrectly licensed" Eagle would hack your computer and send your details to CadSoft so that they could take you to court? That alone is reason enough to never give them any money ever again.

There are lawful methods of protecting one's property and unlawful ones. CadSoft, if I remember correctly, were sentenced.

I am not aware of this (either Eagle "phoning home" or CadSoft being sentenced for that). Would you have any links or other references which support these allegations?

It predates widespread Internet use, so information is sparse, but I did find

https://shop.heise.de/katalog/adressen-aus-bestem-hause

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13681488.html

http://www.offiziere.ch/trust-us/ds/40/008_cadsoft.html

I think I read about it in Elektor, but I have thrown my copies from the time away. My memory may well be faulty.
 
The following users thanked this post: ebastler

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3327
  • Country: de
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2016, 06:41:28 pm »
Thanks Komet, those were good reads. Catching software pirates, 1992 style!  :P

I had assumed that Cadsoft had used an online approach, where the software would "phone home" via the internet. But no -- they mailed floppy disks with Eagle demo versions to users (who had ordered an older demo version before), had the demo search for pirated software copies on the computer, and print a coupon for a free printed manual if it found something presumably illicit. That coupon was in turn mailed (as in "sending a piece of paper via the mail"  ;)) to Cadsoft, who had their lawyer follow up with a threatening letter...

Amusing as it may be for the "pre-historic" approach, it does indeed raise concerns about privacy and spying out others' computers. The coupon did include a "serial number", which encoded some version data about the user's computer, as well as the number of cracked copies it had found on the computer.

It seems that CadSoft was under pressure at the time. A crack had been published the year before, which allowed users to unlock the free demo version into a full copy, and CadSoft claimed that their sales had dropped by 30%. I did not find any follow-up articles reporting on any legal action against CadSoft.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2016, 07:17:10 pm »
So Eagle exists for 24 years at least and they didn't manage to add some features a professional EDA package should have (ok, some where added the last few years) :palm: I got an old hobby-grade licence for BAE, professional features but terrible user interface. Why should I buy an Eagle licence for hobbyist usage when there's KiCad?
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1440
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2016, 07:28:18 pm »
So Eagle exists for 24 years at least and they didn't manage to add some features a professional EDA package should have ...

Like what? push and shove? A pricetag of $8000,=?

For sure, Eagle isn't perfect but, at least for us, it gets the job done in the shortest possible time and it is very reliable and stable.
No way we are going to pay tripple the price for a package that forces us to use windows and stores projects in a closed
format we can't access with independent software.

 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2016, 08:13:49 pm »
So Eagle exists for 24 years at least and they didn't manage to add some features a professional EDA package should have ...

Like what? push and shove? A pricetag of $8000,=?

- symbols without footprint/package (IIRC, that was added 2 years ago)
- symbols supporting multi-footprints for one component (for example: C with 2.54mm and 5.04mm spacing)(also a quite new feature)
- manual routing for off-grid pads is very cumbersome
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3327
  • Country: de
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2016, 12:47:47 pm »
So Eagle exists for 24 years at least and they didn't manage to add some features a professional EDA package should have ...

Like what? push and shove? A pricetag of $8000,=?

- symbols without footprint/package (IIRC, that was added 2 years ago)
- symbols supporting multi-footprints for one component (for example: C with 2.54mm and 5.04mm spacing)(also a quite new feature)
- manual routing for off-grid pads is very cumbersome

So CadSoft don't seem to be doing so badly after all...  :P

Two of the features on your wishlist are already available, as you confirm yourself. And the third one, I'm not sure what problem with off-grid connections you refer to?  I just routed connections to an HDMI connector this weekend, and the traces nicely snap to the off-grid pads, and then make straight/45 degree connections to the next on-grid destination. Using version 5.x, which must be about 5 years old.

Again, Eagle is not my role model for usability. But I can't complain about the features -- more than what I need for my hobby needs. And maybe I am just lucky, but the restrictions of their hobbyist/"maker" version are acceptable for me, so the price tag is OK for me too.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2016, 09:47:16 pm »
And maybe I am just lucky, but the restrictions of their hobbyist/"maker" version are acceptable for me, so the price tag is OK for me too.

i think there will be more of us happily accepting the ~ 160Eur price tag for the hobbyist version ;)

btw.. i'm using Eagle because many years back it was the ONE AND ONLY USABLE software for designing PCBs running on Linux. and if i'm not mistaken it's still the only commercial package NATIVELY running on linux (diptrace runs in wine emulation only despite listing linux as a supported OS).
before i bought the make edition of eagle i learned and started to use KiCad, but found it less comfortable to use than Eagle (however KiCAd has some really cool and useful features which are not available in Eagle).
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3467
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2016, 12:49:18 am »
And maybe I am just lucky, but the restrictions of their hobbyist/"maker" version are acceptable for me, so the price tag is OK for me too.

i think there will be more of us happily accepting the ~ 160Eur price tag for the hobbyist version ;)

btw.. i'm using Eagle because many years back it was the ONE AND ONLY USABLE software for designing PCBs running on Linux. and if i'm not mistaken it's still the only commercial package NATIVELY running on linux (diptrace runs in wine emulation only despite listing linux as a supported OS).
before i bought the make edition of eagle i learned and started to use KiCad, but found it less comfortable to use than Eagle (however KiCAd has some really cool and useful features which are not available in Eagle).

One true and clear thing here.  ALL ECAD packages are worse than the ones you are proficient in.  With motivation the list on the "in" side of the line can change, but the answer remains the same.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1440
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2016, 08:10:16 am »
And maybe I am just lucky, but the restrictions of their hobbyist/"maker" version are acceptable for me, so the price tag is OK for me too.

i think there will be more of us happily accepting the ~ 160Eur price tag for the hobbyist version ;)

btw.. i'm using Eagle because many years back it was the ONE AND ONLY USABLE software for designing PCBs running on Linux. and if i'm not mistaken it's still the only commercial package NATIVELY running on linux (diptrace runs in wine emulation only despite listing linux as a supported OS).
before i bought the make edition of eagle i learned and started to use KiCad, but found it less comfortable to use than Eagle (however KiCAd has some really cool and useful features which are not available in Eagle).

One true and clear thing here.  ALL ECAD packages are worse than the ones you are proficient in.  With motivation the list on the "in" side of the line can change, but the answer remains the same.

That's not always true. I have used Multisim & Ultiboard for a couple of years. It was full of bugs which were only solved with payed upgrades.
I have used Altium Designer for one year. Althoug not really bad, it crashed at least once a day.
I have used Zuken Cadstar for about six months, that one was definitely the most difficult to learn.
In the end I decided to go with Eagle and, despite the lack of some features, I haven't regret it once.
 

Offline IanJ

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Country: scotland
  • Pro EE guy many years ago, now a hobby/home biz.
    • IanJohnston.com
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2016, 11:01:38 am »
Hi all,

Yep, I don't like the licensing model either...........I have a license for Eagle Pro, but find myself stuck at V6.6 as I won't pay the large amount to upgrade to V7 and beyond. With the current model structure they'll never get my money again........unless the come up with some fantastic features that begs me to upgrade, like push n shove or even much, much better library management and editing to tell you the truth. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter at all, it's just a fact.

The new naming for the different versions is confusing to me.......but I suppose that's because I am still stuck at V6.6 etc.

The secret to success is to entice new users, but also to entice existing users back again and again. Looks like Cadsoft don't want that and I guess probably because they aren't making enough income from the product. The accountants have taken over product development.

Ian.
Ian Johnston
www.ianjohnston.com
Manufacturer of the PDVS2 & PDVS2mini
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 18580
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2016, 12:46:59 pm »
One true and clear thing here.  ALL ECAD packages are worse than the ones you are proficient in.  With motivation the list on the "in" side of the line can change, but the answer remains the same.
Absolutely not true. I'm quite proficient in several packages but a few of them are really cumbersome to use so even though I have hundreds of hours of use on some of these packages I really wouldn't want to use them.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2016, 01:01:03 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #46 on: June 21, 2016, 12:51:04 pm »
btw.. i'm using Eagle because many years back it was the ONE AND ONLY USABLE software for designing PCBs running on Linux. and if i'm not mistaken it's still the only commercial package NATIVELY running on linux (diptrace runs in wine emulation only despite listing linux as a supported OS).

BAE ( http://www.bartels.de/basys/bartels_home_en.htm ). In my opinion it's more professional than Eagle. For example, it supports scripts for complex pin/gate swapping rules. Features Eagle just added are included in BAE for more than 10 years.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2016, 12:53:10 pm by madires »
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #47 on: June 21, 2016, 01:20:05 pm »
I learned long ago that free EDA programs cost more in the end. I don't use Eagle (did once before Element 14 but any respectable EDA should have a built in simulator so I dumped it).

I bought the original CircuitMaker before Altium bought it and trashed it. There are people still using it and while it has some rough edges it has a nice simulator and will do small to medium size boards just fine. If you can find it around cheap it might be worth the effort to look into. I still have it on my computer somewhere so I expect it should work with Windows 7.

Look, you're getting a free program. That means you're at the mercy of the seller. So Eagle sucked a lot of people in and now they're changing tracks. First, it was OK cheap but not so great at a couple of grand. Now you spent time learning it and that's just what they hoped for, you're stuck, time is money and you just spent yours!

Buy a program, look at their track record and read their forum first, learn it and hope it will be around awhile. If you keep going to free, you'll keep getting burned.

I use Labcenter Proteus, not the cheapest but it has enough bells and whistles to keep me happy. It's much better  than the cumbersome Eagle and has a great simulator if you get the advanced version. I'm not trying to sell anything, I'm sure there are great programs out there but if you want a free one, again, you'll likely get burned.

OK, I do professional work and don't have time to fiddle and nickel and dime my way through EDA programs or write ULPs. If I was a hobbyist I'd look for a solid older program like the Protel based CM I mentioned above and see if I could find it cheap.

Rob
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #48 on: June 21, 2016, 01:30:36 pm »
btw.. i'm using Eagle because many years back it was the ONE AND ONLY USABLE software for designing PCBs running on Linux. and if i'm not mistaken it's still the only commercial package NATIVELY running on linux (diptrace runs in wine emulation only despite listing linux as a supported OS).

BAE ( http://www.bartels.de/basys/bartels_home_en.htm ). In my opinion it's more professional than Eagle. For example, it supports scripts for complex pin/gate swapping rules. Features Eagle just added are included in BAE for more than 10 years.

ok so there is one, checked their web ... 190euro for a lite version for individuals... not bad... clicked download... and ....no...  thank you.... release from 23rd December 2013 ???  seriously ? furthermore - in requirements they say kernel 2.0.0+ and motif (no version mentioned)...  considering the really ancient kernel requirement, the motif version required will be ancient too - so there is a high risk of not being usable with recent linux distributions..

so sorry, but Eagle looks much better from this perspective...
 

Offline H.O

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 638
  • Country: se
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2016, 01:37:50 pm »
Quote
BAE ( http://www.bartels.de/basys/bartels_home_en.htm ). In my opinion it's more professional than Eagle. For example, it supports scripts for complex pin/gate swapping rules. Features Eagle just added are included in BAE for more than 10 years.
Their Light version costs €159 which, if the limitations are reasonable is fine. But once you outgrow that the next step up (the "Economy Version") is €2690 and it goes on up from there. By the way, what ARE the limitations of the Light version? I browsed around (quickly) and couldn't find a comparison of the various versions.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2016, 02:09:04 pm »
ok so there is one, checked their web ... 190euro for a lite version for individuals... not bad... clicked download... and ....no...  thank you.... release from 23rd December 2013 ???  seriously ? furthermore - in requirements they say kernel 2.0.0+ and motif (no version mentioned)...  considering the really ancient kernel requirement, the motif version required will be ancient too - so there is a high risk of not being usable with recent linux distributions..

so sorry, but Eagle looks much better from this perspective...

It says  2.0.0+, so any later kernel should be fine. And openmotif shouldn't be any problem. The current version is 2.3.4 and 2.3.1 was released in 2008 or so
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #51 on: June 21, 2016, 02:10:45 pm »
Their Light version costs €159 which, if the limitations are reasonable is fine. But once you outgrow that the next step up (the "Economy Version") is €2690 and it goes on up from there. By the way, what ARE the limitations of the Light version? I browsed around (quickly) and couldn't find a comparison of the various versions.

Found it:
- 180mm*120mm
- 2 layers
 

Online HighVoltage

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4382
  • Country: de
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #52 on: June 21, 2016, 02:31:18 pm »
Reading all this, I am glad I never used Eagle
There are 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can not.
 

Offline H.O

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 638
  • Country: se
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #53 on: June 21, 2016, 03:30:47 pm »
Reading all this, I am glad I never used Eagle
I use EAGLE and I'm glad. It has allowed me to do a lot of things I could never have done without it. It has never ever crashed or trashed my work. It has never ever done anything to make me say - WTF did it do now. Sure, it's lacking advanced features like push and shove and more basic features like being able to view the board from the bottom and their license model with the space restriction sort of sucks but it has served me well and I must say that if you're smart enough to design electronic circuits then you're bloody well smart enough to learn EAGLE.

Sitting down with for 15 minutes, not bothering to open the manual or look up a tutorial and then going online making forum posts about how bad the thing is because it didn't work the way you wanted or a certain function wasn't in the menu you looked. It's like you're supposed to bash EAGLE, like you're supposed to bash BASIC, like you're supposed to bash Chinese T&M manufacturers - I don't get it.

I KNOW very well that there are other tools that are more capable and more competent than EAGLE but I'm old enough to realise that they too come with their respective learning curve, limitiations, and cost.


 
The following users thanked this post: rob77, XFDDesign, ebastler

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2016, 12:39:01 am »
Reading all this, I am glad I never used Eagle
I use EAGLE and I'm glad. It has allowed me to do a lot of things I could never have done without it. It has never ever crashed or trashed my work. It has never ever done anything to make me say - WTF did it do now. Sure, it's lacking advanced features like push and shove and more basic features like being able to view the board from the bottom and their license model with the space restriction sort of sucks but it has served me well and I must say that if you're smart enough to design electronic circuits then you're bloody well smart enough to learn EAGLE.

Sitting down with for 15 minutes, not bothering to open the manual or look up a tutorial and then going online making forum posts about how bad the thing is because it didn't work the way you wanted or a certain function wasn't in the menu you looked. It's like you're supposed to bash EAGLE, like you're supposed to bash BASIC, like you're supposed to bash Chinese T&M manufacturers - I don't get it.

I KNOW very well that there are other tools that are more capable and more competent than EAGLE but I'm old enough to realise that they too come with their respective learning curve, limitiations, and cost.

OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.

Most of the ULPs (User Language Programs) in Eagle are included with any good EDA program AND supported by the vendor. Cadsoft doesn't support those ULPs. And I've had Eagle crash and not capable of integrating older versions. I've had board houses that had problems with Eagle Gerbers. That's when I stopped using it and they had to refund the full amount I had just paid for the pro version. I've never lost a schematic with my present EDA going on several years now and sending gerbers is a quick couple of clicks. Oh, I forgot Eagle is "award winning", every year by the same magazine.

One good thing, Ed Robledo. But I don't even know if he's still there.

Rob
 

Offline H.O

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 638
  • Country: se
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2016, 05:25:56 am »
Well, if you don't WANT to learn then then don't. If it doesn't have the features you want or need then clearly it's not for you but that doesn't mean it sucks for everybody else as well.
And if you sit down with it with the mindset that it's going to suck, then it will suck. But so will most things.
 
I'm not pushing it onto anyone, have no personal attachment to it or CADSoft, all are free to choose whichever they want. It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....

Of course it has bugs, all software has, and apparently you've hit more of them I have.

It's the only PCB design tool I've used, when I started using it there was nothing else around, I've had no real reason to abandon it but that may change of course. It's however not the only CAD program I've used and I don't find EAGLE any harder to use than AutoCAD, Inventor or EPLAN. I don't use EAGLE professionally (AutoCAD and EPLAN I do but they're not PCB tools) and I only do 2 layer boards with it. So there you go, I probably don't qualify.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2016, 08:21:01 am »
It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....
+1
everyone is different and has different demands, wishes and how things should be. Eagle has clearly proven in the past and still is, that it has deserved a place in pcb cad programs.
Its market share has surpassed many older and vanished programs, perhaps there are better programs out there and if you want to start from scratch please do, I am happy with the current licensing model, much more happy than many commercial compiler sellers are offering for non commercial clients.
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2016, 11:52:44 am »
Well, if you don't WANT to learn then then don't. If it doesn't have the features you want or need then clearly it's not for you but that doesn't mean it sucks for everybody else as well.
And if you sit down with it with the mindset that it's going to suck, then it will suck. But so will most things.
 
I'm not pushing it onto anyone, have no personal attachment to it or CADSoft, all are free to choose whichever they want. It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....

Of course it has bugs, all software has, and apparently you've hit more of them I have.

It's the only PCB design tool I've used, when I started using it there was nothing else around, I've had no real reason to abandon it but that may change of course. It's however not the only CAD program I've used and I don't find EAGLE any harder to use than AutoCAD, Inventor or EPLAN. I don't use EAGLE professionally (AutoCAD and EPLAN I do but they're not PCB tools) and I only do 2 layer boards with it. So there you go, I probably don't qualify.

 I never said Eagle is the worst program around, it's OK for hobby boards. You can get free programs from Mouser and Digi-Key now with some pretty sophisticated roots that will give you pretty much the same thing.
And I used Eagle for several years until Element 14 bought it out, that's when I think it got worse. Ed personally told me they released 6 too soon and that's why it had compatibility issues with my older files. If it works for you  then use it. The original poster is the one who complained about the pricing structure, not me.

My point then and now is that 'free' programs especially have hooks in them to try and leverage you to buy the more expensive versions or sell you their line card of parts like Element 14 does. I don't think a couple of grand for a program with unsupported ULPs lacking simulation is a great deal but if you're happy then you don't need to defend it. The library structure, the file allocating system, the forward annotation, parts making, Gerbers, etc. are all really cumbersome to me, but I've used several EDAs so I know what a well laid out program can do.

Eagle wasn't stupid giving away a small board free version., Jobs did it a long time ago with Apple bringing it into schools. Kids learned Apple and bought it after they left school. He and Eagle knew you'd stick with what you learned, which is exactly what you did. Again, don't underestimate to hidden cost of learning a program, Eagle isn't free.

Rob
 

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2016, 01:32:35 pm »
Well, if you don't WANT to learn then then don't. If it doesn't have the features you want or need then clearly it's not for you but that doesn't mean it sucks for everybody else as well.
And if you sit down with it with the mindset that it's going to suck, then it will suck. But so will most things.
 
I'm not pushing it onto anyone, have no personal attachment to it or CADSoft, all are free to choose whichever they want. It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....

Of course it has bugs, all software has, and apparently you've hit more of them I have.

It's the only PCB design tool I've used, when I started using it there was nothing else around, I've had no real reason to abandon it but that may change of course. It's however not the only CAD program I've used and I don't find EAGLE any harder to use than AutoCAD, Inventor or EPLAN. I don't use EAGLE professionally (AutoCAD and EPLAN I do but they're not PCB tools) and I only do 2 layer boards with it. So there you go, I probably don't qualify.

 I never said Eagle is the worst program around, it's OK for hobby boards. You can get free programs from Mouser and Digi-Key now with some pretty sophisticated roots that will give you pretty much the same thing.
And I used Eagle for several years until Element 14 bought it out, that's when I think it got worse. Ed personally told me they released 6 too soon and that's why it had compatibility issues with my older files. If it works for you  then use it. The original poster is the one who complained about the pricing structure, not me.

My point then and now is that 'free' programs especially have hooks in them to try and leverage you to buy the more expensive versions or sell you their line card of parts like Element 14 does. I don't think a couple of grand for a program with unsupported ULPs lacking simulation is a great deal but if you're happy then you don't need to defend it. The library structure, the file allocating system, the forward annotation, parts making, Gerbers, etc. are all really cumbersome to me, but I've used several EDAs so I know what a well laid out program can do.

Eagle wasn't stupid giving away a small board free version., Jobs did it a long time ago with Apple bringing it into schools. Kids learned Apple and bought it after they left school. He and Eagle knew you'd stick with what you learned, which is exactly what you did. Again, don't underestimate to hidden cost of learning a program, Eagle isn't free.

Rob
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)
 

Offline XFDDesign

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 435
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2016, 02:53:10 pm »
OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.


Protell98->Altium (still my favorite), Mentor Graphics Pads coupled with OrCad (I still loathe PADS to this day), Circuitmaker/traxmaker (pre 2k), Eagle, Cadence Allegro.

Is that a sufficient list for dickwaving?

I'm quite bored of these people who want one package that does everything, does it well, does all their work for them, and does it almost by reading their mind all while being "about" free.

Eagle is a tool. PADS is a tool. Altium is a tool. Allegro is a tool. It is absolutely about what an individual chooses to learn. Their choice is a judgement made on the goal of the action that needs to be performed. If I had a limitless budget, I would go to Altium every time, because it does so much and does it well. On my "professional" projects at home (i.e. moonlighting) I use Eagle. It lets me get the job done for a reasonable investment. At my day job, we use the brutally cumbersome Allegro package for formal entry by the CAD group. For projects that I work on, prior to going into the formal system, I use Eagle Pro "professionally" to turn boards from idea into product quickly. I pick the right tool for the job that gets it done as properly and quickly as possible. This distraction at "SPICE" is nonsense. Even if it were not, Eagle has integrated with LTSpice to a degree, so that useless complaint is a non-start.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 07:43:31 pm by XFDDesign »
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1440
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2016, 05:09:30 pm »
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)

Another reason why we use Eagle. And no, we are not hobbyists...
The schematic, board and library files are in xml and fully open and described.
There's a dtd file in the doc directory.

Quote
  EAGLE version 7.5.0 DTD
  Copyright (c) 2015 CadSoft Computer GmbH
  http://www.cadsoft.de

  This file describes the XML file format used by EAGLE version 7.5.0,
  hereafter referred to as the "EAGLE File Format".
  It is made available under the creative commons "CC BY-ND 3.0" license
  (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0).
  You may use this file to implement a program that reads and/or writes files
  in the EAGLE File Format. If your program writes files in the EAGLE File
  Format, these files must be readable by EAGLE version 7.5.0
  without any error messages or warnings.
 
The following users thanked this post: XFDDesign

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2016, 10:07:56 pm »
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)

Another reason why we use Eagle. And no, we are not hobbyists...
The schematic, board and library files are in xml and fully open and described.
There's a dtd file in the doc directory.

Quote
  EAGLE version 7.5.0 DTD
  Copyright (c) 2015 CadSoft Computer GmbH
  http://www.cadsoft.de

  This file describes the XML file format used by EAGLE version 7.5.0,
  hereafter referred to as the "EAGLE File Format".
  It is made available under the creative commons "CC BY-ND 3.0" license
  (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0).
  You may use this file to implement a program that reads and/or writes files
  in the EAGLE File Format. If your program writes files in the EAGLE File
  Format, these files must be readable by EAGLE version 7.5.0
  without any error messages or warnings.

Who cares about this theorical openness if their projects can't be imported by mostly all EDA packages? I see no full support in KiCad, for example.

Is a DTD file enough for instant compatibility?
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2016, 10:48:51 pm »
OK, let me put this in a different light.
FOR ME and in MY OPINION, after using several CAD, CAM and EDA programs over the last 25 years, I find Eagle to be a cumbersome, at best, hobby program to be avoided. You couldn't give it to me for free. OOOPPPs! It is free.
There, all fixed.
Enjoy your Eagle! ;D
Rob
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2016, 10:54:03 pm »
OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.


Protell98->Altium (still my favorite), Mentor Graphics Pads coupled with OrCad (I still loathe PADS to this day), Circuitmaker/traxmaker (pre 2k), Eagle, Cadence Allegro.

Is that a sufficient list for dickwaving?


I think you need to add Ivex and Electronics Workbench for a full dickwave.>:D
Rob
 

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2016, 12:37:03 am »
OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.


Protell98->Altium (still my favorite), Mentor Graphics Pads coupled with OrCad (I still loathe PADS to this day), Circuitmaker/traxmaker (pre 2k), Eagle, Cadence Allegro.

Is that a sufficient list for dickwaving?


I think you need to add Ivex and Electronics Workbench for a full dickwave.>:D
Rob
Would you like to add interesting and active feedback to KiCad? Chris Pavlina is working on UI stuff, for example.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1440
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2016, 06:37:05 am »
Who cares about this theorical openness

We do. It's one of the reasons we use Eagle. And it's not theoretical by the way.

if their projects can't be imported by mostly all EDA packages?

Altium Designer can import Eagle files. I don't know about others.

I see no full support in KiCad, for example.

Is that the fault of Eagle or Kicad?

Is a DTD file enough for instant compatibility?

Together with the rest of the official Eagle documentation, yes.
 

Offline KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1112
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2016, 07:04:50 am »

Who cares about this theorical openness if their projects can't be imported by mostly all EDA packages? I see no full support in KiCad, for example.

Is a DTD file enough for instant compatibility?

EAGLE's XML format is a staggeringly powerful feature, if you're a programmer.  I wouldn't use a CAD package that didn't have an open file format.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2016, 07:19:56 am »
I love the fact that the files are xml. While using svn or other versioning and revision control system you can directly see the differences between previous files and best adjust the lines back that you want without changing the rest of the files.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2016, 09:10:15 am »
I love the fact that the files are xml. While using svn or other versioning and revision control system you can directly see the differences between previous files and best adjust the lines back that you want without changing the rest of the files.

furthermore if you're on linux you can conveniently search in those xml files using standard OS tools like grep. you can easily write your own programs or scripts to manipulate xml files... you can't do that with closed binary formats...

basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5764
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2016, 09:22:25 am »
basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
Agree, the more open a system is the more people can contribute and make a solution for their problems that not surprisingly also can solve someone elses problem.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1440
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #70 on: June 23, 2016, 11:09:26 am »
basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
Agree, the more open a system is the more people can contribute and make a solution for their problems that not surprisingly also can solve someone elses problem.

For example, this one couldn't be made with only ulp programming. It uses a (open-source) tool to read the xml-files directly:

http://www.teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/
 
The following users thanked this post: MarkL

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2016, 11:25:17 pm »
basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
Agree, the more open a system is the more people can contribute and make a solution for their problems that not surprisingly also can solve someone elses problem.

For example, this one couldn't be made with only ulp programming. It uses a (open-source) tool to read the xml-files directly:

http://www.teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/
I wonder if the same could be used to other file formats...
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #72 on: June 27, 2016, 12:09:05 am »
Open source, closed source, I don't care. I don't want to write ULP's, I'm not in the EDA software writing business. I want a program that enables me to simulate and take it to a final PCB with the least hassle. One package with continuity, not something that a guy wrote in his basement that's not supported by the vendor. Here's an example, I was using an Eagle ULP someone wrote to convert drill files to Gcode for my CAM program. The thing would drill a hole on one side of the board and then go to the other side of the board, back and forth instead of the closest hole of the same size. No recourse, no vendor saying we'll correct it in the next revision.

Sharing? When my work is published, my editor only needs a PDF of the schematic. Someone wants a Gerber, he gets my Gerber. Period.

Rob
 

Online Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Country: ch
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #73 on: June 27, 2016, 12:57:09 pm »
Would you like to add interesting and active feedback to KiCad? Chris Pavlina is working on UI stuff, for example.

I would. The one thing I can't understand is still missing is clipboard handling, i.e. cut/copy/paste of blocks within a page as well as between pages or even different projects.

I've never encountered any other program that doesn't implement that, and it's a major pain when maintaining several schematics with different variations of the same thing. Every change needs to manually be repeated in all of them...
 

Offline PCB.Wiz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 382
  • Country: au
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #74 on: July 02, 2016, 11:07:23 pm »
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)
Hehe, yes.

 Some of the less subtle lock-ins include closed binary-only formats, and timed-license files. Thankfully, those mostly are behind us, as the market place these days is too well connected to fall for those tricks.

 Hardware keys that incurred a charge of hundreds of dollars to migrate, was another favourite.

 More subtle, is deliberate crippling of lower-end tools, to force users to upgrade.

This also is getting harder, as tools like KiCad effectively now set the bar of what is tolerated at the base level.
Some of the 'tricks' a quick trawl of forums finds are
*  Removal of slots to force  Round holes only (Altium, CS) -amazing, yes they still try this, even though even KiCad supports slots just fine.
*  Removal of scripts from lowest end tools (Altium, Mentor) even though Eagle and KiCad have advanced scripting.

 The good news is, the libraries are getting more open, as Distributors start to offer Component Libraries, and each new update sees the EDA corporates forced to improve the specs of even their base line tools.
 Ironically, this is rather easier for them, than to improve specs of their high end tools, as the low-end cripple is often a deliberately added conditional ;)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf