I have used EagleCAD for PCB design and find it a bit quirky.
Has anyone out there tried WinQCad? How does it compare in terms of ease-of-use and capability?
I also have access to Portel and OrCad at work. In a nutshell, for what kind of jobs would it be worth the additional time required to master either of these more complex applications.
Ken Rolf wrote: > I have used EagleCAD for PCB design and find it a bit quirky.
> Has anyone out there tried WinQCad? How does it compare in terms of > ease-of-use and capability?
I use Eagle and I am quite happy with it except for one major shortcoming explained below. A client uses WinQCad and their engineer is happy as well.
> I also have access to Portel and OrCad at work. In a nutshell, for > what kind of jobs would it be worth the additional time required to > master either of these more complex applications.
Eagle has IMHO one major flaw: No hierarchy structure is available for schematics. That makes designs with more than just a few pages almost unmanageable for anyone but the original designer. Even the original designer might get lost in such a flat sheet structure when re-visiting the schematic a few years down the road.
OrCad does offer hierarchy and, AFAIK, so does WinQCad. If Cadsoft doesn't fix this soon I'll probably switch away from them.
Ken Rolf wrote: >I have used EagleCAD for PCB design
There is no product called EagleCAD. The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. If you give it the opportunity, it will lock you out of your work product. http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus
JeffM wrote: > Ken Rolf wrote: >> I have used EagleCAD for PCB design
> There is no product called EagleCAD. > The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. > If you give it the opportunity, > it will lock you out of your work product. > http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus
If some of the participants worked with cracked copies. Otherwise it does not.
JeffM wrote: > Ken Rolf wrote: >>I have used EagleCAD for PCB design
> There is no product called EagleCAD. > The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. > If you give it the opportunity, > it will lock you out of your work product. > http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus
>JeffM wrote: >>The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>If you give it the opportunity, >>it will lock you out of your work product. >>http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus
Baron wrote: >Total bull !
Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words and of fewer actual ideas. I suggest a reading comprehension course.
Markus described the whole sad tale. Though he was a paid-up user, Cadsoft treated him like something to be scraped off their shoe.
JeffM wrote: >> JeffM wrote: >>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>> If you give it the opportunity, >>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus > Baron wrote: >> Total bull !
> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words > and of fewer actual ideas. > I suggest a reading comprehension course.
> Markus described the whole sad tale.
Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a cracked version."
A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture their schemas from scratch!"
My impression is that he's more of a commercial user, corroborated by the fact that he uses a licensed version like I do. This begs the question where this "innocent piece of design" came from. Copied off the web is something I don't believe he could have done. That would raise some flags WRT to copyrights. One cannot simply copy a chunk out of someone else's schematic and use it, unless it's hobby maybe. I never do that because that would be breaking the law. So I really don't believe he did that either, he comes across as an honest guy.
If he got it from someone for money then the seller broke the law. In that case it's similar to receiving a fake $50 bill. The bank or sheriff will confiscate that bill and you do not get compensated for your loss.
In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code and they trust that you won't leak that to others. So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. On top of that they allow you to spool another copy onto your laptop for road use, at least that's what my license says. I find that a very fair policy. I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous.
Joerg wrote: >In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >onto your laptop for road use, >at least that's what my license says. >I find that a very fair policy. >I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous.
That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. It's still distrust. Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
JeffM wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >> onto your laptop for road use, >> at least that's what my license says. >> I find that a very fair policy. >> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous.
> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. > Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. > It's still distrust. > Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be blamed for that.
The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
>JeffM wrote: >> Joerg wrote: >>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>> onto your laptop for road use, >>> at least that's what my license says. >>> I find that a very fair policy. >>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous.
>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >> It's still distrust. >> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
>As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >blamed for that.
>The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during inspection ;-)
It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama says, "I AM NOT a cry baby, Fox REALLY IS out to get me!"
Jim Thompson wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> > wrote:
>> JeffM wrote: >>> Joerg wrote: >>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>> It's still distrust. >>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
>> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >> blamed for that.
>> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during > inspection ;-)
Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then the guy is long gone.
> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats > simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
>Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >> wrote:
>>> JeffM wrote: >>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >>>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>>> It's still distrust. >>>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
>>> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >>> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >>> blamed for that.
>>> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >>> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >>> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
>> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >> inspection ;-)
>Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your >check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. >Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then >the guy is long gone.
>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
Arizona only does that with really old stuff, like carbureted w/o ECU, and heavy trucks.
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama says, "I AM NOT a cry baby, Fox REALLY IS out to get me!"
Jim Thompson wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:16:34 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> > wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote:
>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >>>>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>>>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>>>> It's still distrust. >>>>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes. >>>> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >>>> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >>>> blamed for that.
>>>> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >>>> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >>>> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car. >>> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >>> inspection ;-)
>> Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your >> check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. >> Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then >> the guy is long gone.
>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
> Arizona only does that with really old stuff, like carbureted w/o ECU, > and heavy trucks.
So how do they think they can avoid fraud? Or to say it more bluntly, were they even thinking?
>Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:16:34 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >> wrote:
>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>>>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>>>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>>>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>>>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>>>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>>>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>>>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>>>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >>>>>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>>>>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>>>>> It's still distrust. >>>>>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes. >>>>> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >>>>> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >>>>> blamed for that.
>>>>> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >>>>> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >>>>> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car. >>>> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >>>> inspection ;-)
>>> Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your >>> check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. >>> Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then >>> the guy is long gone.
>>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >>>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
>> Arizona only does that with really old stuff, like carbureted w/o ECU, >> and heavy trucks.
>So how do they think they can avoid fraud? Or to say it more bluntly, >were they even thinking?
Joerg, You fret too much about the wrong things. Move to AZ or NV and enjoy the good life, while you have a chance.
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama says, "I AM NOT a cry baby, Fox REALLY IS out to get me!"
Jim Thompson wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:37:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> > wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:16:34 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>>>>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>>>>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>>>>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>>>>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>>>>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>>>>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>>>>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>>>>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >>>>>>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>>>>>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>>>>>> It's still distrust. >>>>>>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes. >>>>>> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >>>>>> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >>>>>> blamed for that.
>>>>>> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >>>>>> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >>>>>> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car. >>>>> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >>>>> inspection ;-)
>>>> Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your >>>> check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. >>>> Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then >>>> the guy is long gone.
>>>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >>>>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>>>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe. >>> Arizona only does that with really old stuff, like carbureted w/o ECU, >>> and heavy trucks.
>> So how do they think they can avoid fraud? Or to say it more bluntly, >> were they even thinking?
> Joerg, You fret too much about the wrong things. Move to AZ or NV and > enjoy the good life, while you have a chance.
Try to sell a house here :-)
So far life is good out here. If they impose the net receipts tax it'll be less good. Then again, that will cause hefty layoffs and more work for outsiders like me.
>Joerg wrote: >>As I said in the part you snipped >>he has used clandestinely generated work.
Well, *you* use library parts generated by others. What I see is you looking down your nose at those who do likewise.
>>Probably a perfectly honest mistake >>but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be blamed for that.
Markus was a paid-up customer of Cadsoft. It would have been trivial for them to get him out of his bind. As always, it's the LEGIT users who get screwed by DRM. That Cadsoft doesn't recognize this about DRM makes them yet another for the DO NOT PURCHASE list.
Screwing your customers is a STUPID business model. I don't know what the solution to piracy is but I do know that DRM AIN'T IT.
>>The very same thing would happen >>if you unknowingly bought a used car >>where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. >>When the smog check guys find out
He didn't go to the smog check guys. He went to the factory guys WHO HE HAD PAID. NO ONE TOLD HIM ABOUT THIS SHIT AHEAD OF TIME.
>>they will take away your rights to drive that car.
If **the Ford factory guys** came in the middle of the night and crippled my car because I had tinkered with it, I'd be plenty pissed. If they did that after I had let a trusted mechanic work on it and he had been denied the don't-ever-do list by the factory my level of anger would be off the chart.
Jim Thompson wrote: >True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings >during inspection ;-)
Exactly. DRM doesn't affect *real* pirates. Only LEGIT customers get screwed by DRM. Clueless companies don't deserve to have any more customers and only clueless companies use this stupid fad in their products. Frankly, dongles are more honest.
JeffM wrote: >> Joerg wrote: >>> As I said in the part you snipped >>> he has used clandestinely generated work.
> Well, *you* use library parts generated by others.
Nope. I don't. As I understood it he used part of a schematic on several of his designs, not just a library part.
> What I see is you looking down your nose at those who do likewise.
Huh?
>>> Probably a perfectly honest mistake >>> but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be blamed for that.
> Markus was a paid-up customer of Cadsoft. > It would have been trivial for them to get him out of his bind. > As always, it's the LEGIT users who get screwed by DRM.
Yep, they probably could have been a bit more cordial in this case. OTOH if word gets around suddenly dozens of others want the same service and that's where it becomes dicey.
> That Cadsoft doesn't recognize this about DRM > makes them yet another for the DO NOT PURCHASE list.
Everybody has his own list. I would instantly upgrade to Eagle V5 if they hadn't screwed up the hierarchy again. Because other than for the lack of a hierachy it's perfect.
> Screwing your customers is a STUPID business model. > I don't know what the solution to piracy is > but I do know that DRM AIN'T IT.
Well, while we are at it, what do you propose then?
>>> The very same thing would happen >>> if you unknowingly bought a used car >>> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. >>> When the smog check guys find out
> He didn't go to the smog check guys. > He went to the factory guys WHO HE HAD PAID. > NO ONE TOLD HIM ABOUT THIS SHIT AHEAD OF TIME.
How come I knew of this before I bought Eagle? For some reason the same must be true for most others. Else there'd be lots of flak about it on the rather busy Eagle newsgroups, and there isn't.
>>> they will take away your rights to drive that car.
> If **the Ford factory guys** came in the middle of the night > and crippled my car because I had tinkered with it, > I'd be plenty pissed. > If they did that after I had let a trusted mechanic work on it > and he had been denied the don't-ever-do list by the factory > my level of anger would be off the chart.
> Jim Thompson wrote: >> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings >> during inspection ;-)
> Exactly. DRM doesn't affect *real* pirates. > Only LEGIT customers get screwed by DRM.
Well, do not accept or copy schematic sections from unknown sources and you'll be just fine. In the same way that I assume you do not simply click "download" on any sort of program from the web that you find interesting.
> Clueless companies don't deserve to have any more customers > and only clueless companies use this stupid fad in their products. > Frankly, dongles are more honest.
I will never buy a product with a dongle, and many others won't either. Never have.
> Jim Thompson wrote: > > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> > > wrote:
> >> JeffM wrote: > >>> Joerg wrote: > >>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know > >>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code > >>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. > >>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. > >>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy > >>>> onto your laptop for road use, > >>>> at least that's what my license says. > >>>> I find that a very fair policy. > >>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. > >>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. > >>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. > >>> It's still distrust. > >>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
> >> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated > >> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be > >> blamed for that.
> >> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car > >> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys > >> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
> > True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during > > inspection ;-)
> Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your > check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. > Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then > the guy is long gone.
> > It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats > > simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
>> Jim Thompson wrote: >> > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >> > wrote:
>> >> JeffM wrote: >> >>> Joerg wrote: >> >>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >> >>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >> >>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >> >>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >> >>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >> >>>> onto your laptop for road use, >> >>>> at least that's what my license says. >> >>>> I find that a very fair policy. >> >>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >> >>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >> >>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >> >>> It's still distrust. >> >>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
>> >> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >> >> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >> >> blamed for that.
>> >> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >> >> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >> >> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
>> > True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >> > inspection ;-)
>> Yeah, but the not so honest guys make an engine "run good", take your >> check, high-tail it and then the NOX is way over the limit or something. >> Which you won't find out until a year later when smog is due, and then >> the guy is long gone.
>> > It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >> > simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
> The car, or the driver?
Don't give the Californicators any new ideas. They know about Methane, but didn't think about tax-paying humans ;-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
California is a truly beautiful state. Too bad it's been so thoroughly fucked over by liberals.
Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >JeffM wrote: >>> JeffM wrote: >>>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>> If you give it the opportunity, >>>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus >> Baron wrote: >>> Total bull !
>> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words >> and of fewer actual ideas. >> I suggest a reading comprehension course.
>> Markus described the whole sad tale.
>Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it >was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a >cracked version."
>A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite >some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture >their schemas from scratch!"
If this is true, then Cadsoft should be avoided. A piece of software should not throw away or cripple files under any circumstance. If it does, it is useless. Period.
-- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!" --------------------------------------------------------------
>> JeffM wrote: >>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>>> If you give it the opportunity, >>>>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus >>> Baron wrote: >>>> Total bull !
>>> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words >>> and of fewer actual ideas. >>> I suggest a reading comprehension course.
>>> Markus described the whole sad tale.
>> Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it >> was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a >> cracked version."
>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite >> some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture >> their schemas from scratch!"
> If this is true, then Cadsoft should be avoided. A piece of software > should not throw away or cripple files under any circumstance. If it > does, it is useless. Period.
When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake 100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy who gave it to you.
CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan, pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles.
>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into >>> quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is >>> to recapture their schemas from scratch!"
[...]
> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I > see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who > imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an > illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake > 100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the > Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy > who gave it to you.
From the above it sounds more like they won't accept the fake bill *and then they confiscate all your genuine money too*.
If it just rejected the part with a warning "part MC68HC11 created with illegal copy", and allowed you to delete it, that would be more reasonable. Why deliberatly infect the designs of honest customers?
> CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan, > pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little > profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to > other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles.
I agree it is better, but that does not make it acceptable.
IMO one of the great advantages of using a product like Eagle with good community support would have been the ability to share libraries with other users. But this is unthinkable given the above.
>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>>>> If you give it the opportunity, >>>>>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus >>>> Baron wrote: >>>>> Total bull !
>>>> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words >>>> and of fewer actual ideas. >>>> I suggest a reading comprehension course.
>>>> Markus described the whole sad tale.
>>> Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it >>> was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a >>> cracked version."
>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite >>> some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture >>> their schemas from scratch!"
>> If this is true, then Cadsoft should be avoided. A piece of software >> should not throw away or cripple files under any circumstance. If it >> does, it is useless. Period.
>When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an illegal
That is why Cadsoft's behaviour is illegal under Dutch law. If you buy something in Holland which appears to be stolen you'll still be the rightful owner UNLESS you could have suspected you bought stolen goods (ridiculous low price, weird circumstances, etc). Markus got the schematic symbol in good faith and had no reason to doubt it. So Markus is not part of the crime.
Cadsoft really should get to the root of the problem (for example by disabling illegal copies) instead of incriminating their paying customers. Besides I wonder how much time Cadsoft put in their copy protection scheme. It might be more time than it would have taken to fix some long standing issues.
-- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!" --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into >>>> quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is >>>> to recapture their schemas from scratch!"
> [...]
>> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >> see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >> imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an >> illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake >> 100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the >> Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy >> who gave it to you.
> From the above it sounds more like they won't accept the fake bill *and > then they confiscate all your genuine money too*.
> If it just rejected the part with a warning "part MC68HC11 created with > illegal copy", and allowed you to delete it, that would be more > reasonable. Why deliberatly infect the designs of honest customers?
We don't know whether it was just a model. Sounds more like part of a schematic.
>> CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan, >> pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little >> profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to >> other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles.
> I agree it is better, but that does not make it acceptable.
> IMO one of the great advantages of using a product like Eagle with good > community support would have been the ability to share libraries with > other users. But this is unthinkable given the above.
Do we know it was actually a library part alone that caused this?
|
