X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned:	amavisd-new at neurotica.com
X-NSA-prism-xkeyscore:	I do not consent to surveillance, prick
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neurotica.com;
	s=default; t=1435680344;
	bh=ofu8dNUF7oqVl28Br8vShEo8a0GflHN7iZfcAQZ6dHY=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=bOHXBvt9wxxek7e41rqZp1ozNJEDhWjwYbB1wzJv7K+wWnkBmque/ZJ+8bGyXbLoB
	oP89kDx1o4rPO6CNXQ/z2AP56k7o8kCXLfqZI3n9Fcyjfg9okixp7EJZmlM5pOsfif
	6STkmQoO7lC65nBDdeBPm0V8c42V5PXnFz1U3mz0=
Message-ID:	<5592BE57.1070603@neurotica.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:05:43 -0400
From:	"Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com)" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <55902AB9 DOT 9000004 AT neurotica DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1506281932040 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <20150629113018 DOT GH19654 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <1435581145 DOT 1447 DOT 19 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <CAOFvGD7npho6fPKAEmce6L1nXy=5EEsVaEH-Vj_XEuiLddodDA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150630083528 DOT GY19654 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <1435666431 DOT 676 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <CAM2RGhQ75UcoEoz4zeEcyEShj+8C8ACJj4-iB7F1r+jyy+bUvw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5833A5F3-C17B-409D-A3B3-553F9DCFEAC5 AT noqsi DOT com> <5592ABB1 DOT 7090404 AT plastitar DOT com> <724860AC-6174-478A-AFD9-A1B117161F58 AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<724860AC-6174-478A-AFD9-A1B117161F58@noqsi.com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t5UG5pHG011859
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 06/30/2015 11:24 AM, John Doty wrote:
> No. I find it incomprehensible. A good tool would construct complex
> objects out of simpler ones, with trivially simple objects at the
> bottom. But PCB can’t do that: it’s just a mess of special-purpose
> hacks that interact in peculiar and confusing ways. This makes PCB
> very rigid and difficult to use.

  This is getting very old, John.

  If you don't like PCB, don't use it.

  If you don't like PCB but want to use it, do something to "fix" it.

  Do something constructive.  Don't just sit there and spout off with
your obvious hatred for PCB.  It makes you look like just another bored
middle-aged guy stuck at home with no life, getting his excitement by
kicking proverbial hornets' nests on mailing lists, safely behind the
physical anonymity of a mail server.  This harms your credibility and
makes you look like much less of the man that I believe you to be.

  You are better than this.  Start acting like it.

              -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

- Raw text -