Author Topic: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux  (Read 24019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3378
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2021, 10:43:15 pm »
Then you had the "Thermals" option un-selected in the definition of the ground polygon, right? That would cause the pad to be fully connected to the ground plane (which makes it hard to solder by hand).

SMD board and reflow.  Actually with leaded solder, I have had no problem soldering to pads without thermals.  I am quite familiar with the pour options, priorities, making multiple polygons to change properties on a board (e.g., some polygons with thermals and others without), and DRC.  Been using Eagle since 3.x.

The example I gave, however, is the first time I have used plated slots.

EDIT: FIxed typo DRG --> DRC
« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 04:30:22 am by jpanhalt »
 

Offline ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11219
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2021, 10:58:29 pm »
Sure. Eagle library attached.
Thanks. This construct generates a ton of Dimension DRC errors. And it does not look like there is a way to exclude that part from the check.

But this match PCBWay description of how to get plated slots - any dimension outline going through copper would result in plating.

Another thing that came to mind. I just looked at USB C connectors I have that match this land pattern, but the though hole mounting lugs only go about half way through 1.6 mm PCB. Is this what everyone uses? Or there are different connectors?
My RSS reader is blocked by the forum, so I won't be actively reading it. If you need to reach me, use email.
 

Offline oPossum

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
  • Country: us
  • Very dangerous - may attack at any time
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2021, 11:56:12 pm »
The DRC errors are due to layer 20 (dimension) being special. I created a new package with the slots on layer 46 (milling) and the DRC errors are gone. Reply #14 has the updated library. The new package is USB_C_16PIN_MIL.

I typically use 0.8 mm PCB for anything with USB C. The tabs are very close to flush with the bottom. Solder from the top with the mighty Metcal.
 

Offline oPossum

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
  • Country: us
  • Very dangerous - may attack at any time
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2021, 12:00:31 am »
Were the slots made here:



done the same way?  They look connected to the GND pour, which is probably what one usually wants.

If they are not connected, then I will also use the milling layer.  The advantage is that the Dimension layer is what I believe JLCPCB wants and, as you say, it is already include in that CAM file.

They are connected to the ground pour because the copper/dimension distance is set to 8 mil. Anything more and it would not be connected.

 

Offline Infraviolet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1001
  • Country: gb
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2021, 11:31:31 pm »
They might not be compatible with more reently made eagle files, but if I recall correctly there are still installers available for download online for eagle as it was before autodesk bought it and before it required activation upon install. This goes for the free 2 layer area limited version anyway.
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6388
  • Country: de
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2021, 05:15:30 am »
They might not be compatible with more reently made eagle files, but if I recall correctly there are still installers available for download online for eagle as it was before autodesk bought it and before it required activation upon install. This goes for the free 2 layer area limited version anyway.

That is correct. Autodesk continues to provide installers for the non-subscription versions from Eagle 6.6 to 7.7 here.

But you can no longer obtain new license keys to run any of these legacy versions in any mode beyond the free two-layer, 100*80 mm² limited version. So these downloads will only be useful if you own an older license, or can get by with the capabilities of the free version.

Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".
« Last Edit: September 28, 2021, 05:12:23 pm by ebastler »
 

Offline KarelTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2213
  • Country: 00
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2021, 02:57:50 pm »
To me it seems obvious now that Eagle (standalone) is going the way of the dodo:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/is-eagle-retired/td-p/9516332/page/6
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7673
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2021, 03:48:32 pm »
No surprises there! That was to be expected when Autodesk bought Eagle. Luckily we have an alternative: KiCad.
 

Offline macegr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2021, 04:34:09 pm »
Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

Huge false equivalence here. Offline license key file and passphrase activation isn't the same as an online activation that requires interaction with a remote server that can just be turned off someday.
 
The following users thanked this post: KE5FX

Offline ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11219
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2021, 05:11:37 pm »
For the past couple weeks I've been evaluating KiCad v6 (unreleased nightly builds). It addressed all the issues I had with v5. And it is way better than Eagle now (at least the last available free limited versions).

I've migrated big chunks of my libraries with no issues. And once released, I'll be switching to KiCad v6. It is a great tool. Thankfully there is no need to deal with autodesk in this case.
My RSS reader is blocked by the forum, so I won't be actively reading it. If you need to reach me, use email.
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6388
  • Country: de
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2021, 08:39:43 pm »
Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

Huge false equivalence here. Offline license key file and passphrase activation isn't the same as an online activation that requires interaction with a remote server that can just be turned off someday.

Who was claiming equivalence with server-based activation (except for you)? I had merely pointed out that the downloadable installers aren't worth much unless one has an old license key.

If one does have such a key, it is indeed reassuring that Autocad cannot simply invalidate it or turn off an old license server. But that was not the point.
 

Offline KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1872
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2021, 10:50:01 pm »
To me it seems obvious now that Eagle (standalone) is going the way of the dodo:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/is-eagle-retired/td-p/9516332/page/6

Not to worry, the Minister of Information Matt B. is on the case.



 
The following users thanked this post: jpanhalt

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6388
  • Country: de
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2021, 07:03:29 am »
Not to worry, the Minister of Information Matt B. is on the case.

Surprisingly, I find Matt's message in that thread quite clear and open. He is essentially saying that Autodesk have given up on EAGLE due to limitations in its code base. The development team is fully focusing on "Fusion Electronics" instead, which is apparently an entirely new code base. They are not adding more features to EAGLE and are merely keeping it on the market until they have convinced everyone that Fusion Electronics is better.

Quote
[...] feature development has been slowed or stopped on EAGLE in recent months while our efforts focused on Fusion Electronics. [...]   Moreover, we will continue to develop on the Fusion side until such a time that we prove-out (for users) why Fusion’s core is SO much stronger in multiple areas and by implementing the things which demonstrate “why” we’ve made this choice with the resource constraints any team has on any product.  [...]  we made the decision to keep EAGLE going until we knew clearly that what we believed were best in-class capabilities (which we need for any future development) would work for PCB and the users were able to make the switch.

But my favorite quote in Matt's post is this one. Thanks for the honesty, Matt:  8)

Quote
it would make our lives far easier if we didnt face competition from other tools with core capabilities developed more recently, by a much larger engineering team than what EAGLE had pre-Autodesk and able to make better use of today’s compute resources. 
 

Offline ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11219
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2021, 07:14:44 am »
I don't really understand what is their end goal here. There is zero chance that they will come up with anything good. What makes them think that mechanical CAD engine is good for EDA?

Their best bet was to support good integration with existing EDAs. This is all you need from a mechanical CAD.

It is fine that they want to re-write the thing, it was obvious even without looking at the code that it will not smoothly integrate into the existing system. Code never works like this, and the decision clearly was made by managers, who have no clue how this stuff works.

But what do they expect? Do they really think they will be anywhere close to usable EDA? I'm pretty sure EasyEDA will have bigger market share than whatever Autodesk comes up with.
My RSS reader is blocked by the forum, so I won't be actively reading it. If you need to reach me, use email.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2021, 07:50:21 am »
I have seen this sort of thing play out in other companies before so I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Somebody has got it in their head that they need to compete in the EDA market so they decided to buy Eagle. That turned out to be a disaster so now this person has a grand idea that they will just start from scratch and build a whole new tool, except they have zero EE experience and are vastly underestimating the amount of work required to make a viable replacement. They will invest a ton of dev work on it and push out some half baked pile of crap "minimum viable product" that makes a lousy first impression and then they will keep throwing resources at it but it will never gain any market share. What it comes down to is the purchase of Eagle was a massive failure, they wanted into the market but completely dropped the ball and existing users fled like rats off a sinking ship. Now somebody is trying to salvage their career by committing to build a whole new tool but there is no way they will catch up to other options. As soon as they made Eagle subscription-only so soon after stating they had no plans to do so I was pretty sure it was doomed.
 
The following users thanked this post: Karel

Offline KarelTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2213
  • Country: 00
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2021, 08:49:59 am »
This, plus that autodesk will have a hard time to compete with KiCad 6...
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2021, 09:36:09 am »
I don't really understand what is their end goal here. There is zero chance that they will come up with anything good. What makes them think that mechanical CAD engine is good for EDA?

Their best bet was to support good integration with existing EDAs. This is all you need from a mechanical CAD.

It is fine that they want to re-write the thing, it was obvious even without looking at the code that it will not smoothly integrate into the existing system. Code never works like this, and the decision clearly was made by managers, who have no clue how this stuff works.

But what do they expect? Do they really think they will be anywhere close to usable EDA? I'm pretty sure EasyEDA will have bigger market share than whatever Autodesk comes up with.

I'm only guessing but I wonder if a patent is in there somewhere that nobody can figure out how to leverage into a profitable product.
iratus parum formica
 

Offline H.O

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 804
  • Country: se
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2021, 11:25:34 am »
OK, first they went subscription and now they're doing the "cloud or nothing" thing because they need to leverage the technology built into Fusion360  :blah:

Surely Autodesk must have code that would allow them to read/write files from disk buried somewhere in their 40 years worth of "world class, second to none" software that they can leverage instead of THAT particular piece from Fusion360. Or, if they really want to target the "trendy" users, throw in both and then find out how many users actually choose cloud when given an option.
 

Offline MarkL

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2099
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2021, 04:51:02 pm »
The fact that Autodesk tried to buy Altium earlier this year is the biggest tell that the Eagle (Cadsoft) acquisition was a mistake.  I'm not reading much in that article by Matt about what they *do* like about Eagle.  Just why it's not right for the future.

I think they should just acknowledge it was a mistake, cut Eagle loose, and let it live or die on its own.  I would still buy an Eagle license on the old terms with standalone operation.  But realistically that will never happen.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2021, 07:11:48 pm »
The fact that Autodesk tried to buy Altium earlier this year is the biggest tell that the Eagle (Cadsoft) acquisition was a mistake.  I'm not reading much in that article by Matt about what they *do* like about Eagle.  Just why it's not right for the future.

I think they should just acknowledge it was a mistake, cut Eagle loose, and let it live or die on its own.  I would still buy an Eagle license on the old terms with standalone operation.  But realistically that will never happen.

That would require someone to acknowledge that they made a massive blunder and it would probably cost them their job. Not gonna happen.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6458
  • Country: nl
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #45 on: November 30, 2021, 07:32:30 pm »
Personally I do not think they want to compete against Altium, KiCad or the likes.
Their main  ore business for Fusion is 3D CADCAM and they cornered the market there. Almost any business heck even amateurs hobbieists  I know uses it.
Then they realized that integrating a pcb that perfectly fits in for instance an aluminium box or coolingplate would give significant benefits for companies.
It makes more sense for them todo it than Altium expanding to the 3D CADCAM market  :-DD
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5974
  • Country: us
  • Eternally curious
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #46 on: November 30, 2021, 07:49:28 pm »
I have seen this sort of thing play out in other companies before so I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Somebody has got it in their head that they need to compete in the EDA market so they decided to buy Eagle. That turned out to be a disaster so now this person has a grand idea that they will just start from scratch and build a whole new tool, except they have zero EE experience and are vastly underestimating the amount of work required to make a viable replacement. They will invest a ton of dev work on it and push out some half baked pile of crap "minimum viable product" that makes a lousy first impression and then they will keep throwing resources at it but it will never gain any market share. What it comes down to is the purchase of Eagle was a massive failure, they wanted into the market but completely dropped the ball and existing users fled like rats off a sinking ship. Now somebody is trying to salvage their career by committing to build a whole new tool but there is no way they will catch up to other options. As soon as they made Eagle subscription-only so soon after stating they had no plans to do so I was pretty sure it was doomed.
The only correction or perhaps an alternate possibility is: "Somebody has got it in their head that (...). That turned out to be a disaster, so now he/she was let go and they brought someone else to shut this pipe dream and will just start from scratch (...)"

I have seen the alternate scenario happen many times as well... Everybody else is left to pick up the pieces and turn off the lights on the legacy product.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline Bassman59

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2501
  • Country: us
  • Yes, I do this for a living
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2021, 04:31:11 am »
I have seen this sort of thing play out in other companies before so I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Somebody has got it in their head that they need to compete in the EDA market so they decided to buy Eagle. That turned out to be a disaster so now this person has a grand idea that they will just start from scratch and build a whole new tool, except they have zero EE experience and are vastly underestimating the amount of work required to make a viable replacement. They will invest a ton of dev work on it and push out some half baked pile of crap "minimum viable product" that makes a lousy first impression and then they will keep throwing resources at it but it will never gain any market share. What it comes down to is the purchase of Eagle was a massive failure, they wanted into the market but completely dropped the ball and existing users fled like rats off a sinking ship. Now somebody is trying to salvage their career by committing to build a whole new tool but there is no way they will catch up to other options. As soon as they made Eagle subscription-only so soon after stating they had no plans to do so I was pretty sure it was doomed.
The only correction or perhaps an alternate possibility is: "Somebody has got it in their head that (...). That turned out to be a disaster, so now he/she was let go and they brought someone else to shut this pipe dream and will just start from scratch (...)"

I have seen the alternate scenario happen many times as well... Everybody else is left to pick up the pieces and turn off the lights on the legacy product.

My reading of the tea leaves is that CadSoft's principals reached the end of their road with EAGLE -- any proper "upgrade" would require a complete rewrite. This left them with a choice: go ahead and spend the engineering resources to do that rewrite, or ... cash out.

They looked at their resources and the amount of time and money they would need to spend on that upgrade. And they looked at their market and asked hard questions, like, "Will our existing user base pay for an upgrade? Will they see value in paying full price for that upgrade, so we can recoup our investment?" Those of you who paid for the full version of EAGLE -- answer that for us! I realize that this is a rhetorical question.

CadSoft also knew that a significant part of their user base only cared about the free version, and those people were never going to actually pay for anything.

And surely they saw Kicad as being a solid competitor, with active development and a growing user base. This must have played a big part in CadSoft's future planning.

Thus, a decision to look for a buyer. Enter AutoDesk, a company with deep pockets and an idea that offering an integrated PCB and mechanical design suite makes sense. (And be honest, gang -- it actually does.)

It would seem that AutoDesk did not know what it was buying, even though I find that hard to believe. Surely AutoDesk's Legal Sméagols told CadSoft to open their books and their code. More likely they underestimated their ability to merge the CadSoft code mess with Fusion. Who knows. At any rate surely the team at AD who made this purchase happen is already gone.

That they say Eagle development is dead and their future is "Fusion PCB" tells me that the CadSoft project of rewriting their tool is actually in process, perhaps even with the same developers, except it's being paid for by AutoDesk.


And we're all saying, "... but ... Kicad." Indeed -- Kicad is pretty darn great, and it's free. So where does "Fusion PCB" fit into this?

Remember that Fusion360 already has a free hobby license*, a free "startup" license, a free educational license, and the "regular" cost for the standard tool is only US$400 per year. This means that the thousands of people who already use Fusion360 for MCAD will get Fusion PCB for free when it finally arrives, and surely many of these users will try it out, simply because it's there. If it doesn't suck, then maybe it will find a user base. I mean, can it be any worse than Altium's attempts at lower-cost PCB software?

And surely the idea that a low-cost PCB package offered by a major software vendor -- that is, one which would hopefully provide support -- appeals to corporate customers who might not trust a free open-source tool like Kicad.

* The support for electronics design in the hobbyist version is limited, but it is not in the startup version.
 

Offline macegr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2021, 06:43:07 pm »
They looked at their resources and the amount of time and money they would need to spend on that upgrade. And they looked at their market and asked hard questions, like, "Will our existing user base pay for an upgrade? Will they see value in paying full price for that upgrade, so we can recoup our investment?" Those of you who paid for the full version of EAGLE -- answer that for us! I realize that this is a rhetorical question.

I paid for Eagle Professional and significant upgrade costs. I would have re-paid full price for a much-improved Eagle (performance and features, not the small labeling, routing, and view-flipping tinkering Autodesk did with it. The ability to leverage 15+ years of familiarity and efficiency is pretty valuable.
 

Offline macegr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux
« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2021, 06:46:32 pm »
Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

Huge false equivalence here. Offline license key file and passphrase activation isn't the same as an online activation that requires interaction with a remote server that can just be turned off someday.

Who was claiming equivalence with server-based activation (except for you)? I had merely pointed out that the downloadable installers aren't worth much unless one has an old license key.

If one does have such a key, it is indeed reassuring that Autocad cannot simply invalidate it or turn off an old license server. But that was not the point.

You implied the Eagle activation process was always needed and the Autodesk process was the same except for needing to do it every 30 days. I pointed out a massive difference that you glossed over, attempting to minimize legitimate concerns many of us have with subscription licensing.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf