[Cryptech Tech] design software

[Peter Stuge]

Randy Bush wrote:
> tl;dr: if you will be using cryptech designs to make real products,
>        would you prefer freeware schematic/layout software or
>        professional level tools?

The terminology here is confusing at best and misleading at worst,
which is disrespectful of our community, because it makes
communication and collaboration difficult for no reason.

You really need to stay unbiased, especially when proposing a summary,
to not look bad. Maybe you already know that?

"Freeware" usually means proprietary (not open source) software with
a license which permits use without paying a fee. It is orthogonal to
open source or free software.

"Professional level tools" means nothing, but is highly emotional.
Terms like that are off limits if one wants efficient communication.


> the current schmatic in review [0] is done using eagle [1] ... this
> choice was made for a number of reasons:
> 
>   o there is no better open source tool-set, and our design engineers
>     think Eagle is the best low-cost chouce  :(

Just to clarify: EAGLE is proprietary software, not open source.

CERN and many others (including myself) would disagree with the two
opinions above. I don't find EAGLE very good at all, it is merely
very popular. That does not make it good.

There are two open source design packages; gEDA and KiCAD. CERN
famously uses KiCAD, I and many others use gEDA. gEDA has been
compared to perl (bleh) because it's a flexible toolkit rather than
an integrated monolith. KiCAD is an integrated package and especially
the layout tool has several nice features; push-and-shove routing,
automatic trace length matching, and automatic transmission line
calculation. CERN has developed most of these in the last few years,
to meet their own needs.

There is an open source EDA devroom at FOSDEM in Brussels in two weeks.
Come there if you are interested in this domain. No cost.


>   o we thought that it would widen the community using cryptech designs
>     as hackers and pros would be able to adapt the designs usin tools
>     affordable by all.

What matters is that design data is reusable, not which particular
tool is used. I might have said so before.

As far as I know EAGLE is the only commercial EDA tool with an open
data format, so if the project wants to enable reuse then that really
only leaves EAGLE, gEDA and KiCAD to choose from.

Personally I have no preference out of the three, beyond that I could
contribute the little USB ARM design in gEDA format, but it's so simple
that it doesn't really matter.


> "If we ... go with Eagle, we better serve the long tail of
> hobbyists and people with few resources."
> 
> For large potential users (e.g. big companies) ... this is
> indifferent - they would re-do our schematics/layout anyway."

I think you need to ask what the design data should accomplish.

The only reason to use a proprietary data format at this stage would
IMO be that the project wants to create a reference design that can
be used as-is by an ODM/OEM who wants to start selling a product.

Unless someone is banging down the door wanting to donate lots of
money if they can only get a design to spin I don't think it is
time+money well spent, because proprietary design data is generally
useless, both for the project itself and for the community at large.


> a pro design house may not use eagle anyway.

That's useless speculation, you name neither contractor nor their tool.

There are (of course!) excellent contractors out there using EAGLE.

But again, the design software isn't important, the design data is.


//Peter