Well Ian, I downloaded the binary for QUCS ( like that for KiCad ) and just fired up the application. I do however, run a fairly mainstream distro, the SuSE 10.2 ( a RedHat relative ) and the binaries just works out of the box.
QUCS is also available via "smart" and probably "apt" for the SuSE distro. I rather see the developers spending time om important parts than adding multiple syntaxes for component values. This is of course up to ones personal taste and priorities... There are two ways of expressing electronic values! The US version and the European version. The syntax used is probably ISO or something similar. We have still differences in schematic symbols for US and European versions. Personally, I rather see QUCS adhering to one standard only. However, as I am brought up with both worlds ( worked with RCA during the eighties ) - I just don't care about it. The confusion will fix itself in good time as the US users are in such minority. ( And we still educate more engineers than lawyers in Euroland... ) Still, I don't understand your claim on "no binaries"? I found both FreeHDL and QUCS binaries immediately. Anyway! Back to the original question - QUCS is a viable alternative to KiCad but! I have not looked to deep into exporting/importing netlists yet and as we all know, that can be a real bitch! //Dan On Wednesday 10 January 2007 23:04, Ian bell wrote: > Dan Andersson wrote: > > Also, choosing commercial softwares for homebrewer purpose running > > WindowsXX, tend to end up with more or less restricted licensing > > agreements or even functionality. > > In many cases but not all. switcherCAD functionality is fine. > > > So far, I have not ran into a brick wall in QUCS except for the total > > stonewalling if I need mixed mode simulations. I still retain a copy of > > dear old "SPLICE" running on my beloved VAX/VMS box if I have to mix > > analog and digital junk... > > I have downloaded it. Takes ages to compile - pity there are no > binaries like Kicad - and gave it a try. GUI interface is fine. > However it seems very picky about the format of component values. You > can't put in 100R or 100K for example for resistor values. For 100K > you have to put 100 kOhm (it chokes on Ohms or ohms) or write 100000. > Rather counter intuitive IMHO. It is silly details like this that out > people off. After all there are pretty standard ways of expressing > component values and to not follow those conventions seems silly. > > Ian -- Dan Andersson, M0DFI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
