Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/28/12:49:01
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:40:40AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
> > The reason of this (pardon) shortsightedness is beyond me, after all they
> > could easily just stop updating their toolset.
>
> This again demonstrates that you don't understand the ways the toolkit might
> be used. Do you think every gEDA user works by themselves? It is extremely
> important that my customers and collaborators be able to install gEDA and
> work on my projects. gEDA isn't limited to small projects by a single person.
> It is, in fact, excellent for big projects.
Right. Big projects need flexibility that only gEDA can provide and the
users are accustomed to its configuration. Since, as everyone knows, the
best way to extend or configure gEDA is by using a C compiler, the fact
that there are so many gEDA forks out there is a clear testament of the
toolkit's adoption and strengths.
For those users who happen to know C and are willing to use it and spend some
time going through existing code, any attempt to do anything is welcomed by...
> If you only see gEDA as an appendage to pcb for hobbyist projects, you
> haven't grasped its real power at all. That's why all these plans are
> dangerous.
... this.
Sarcasm aside, John, I've always appreciated your position and statements about
the power and flexibility of gEDA over the years, but I think the above is a
bit too much. Could you please choose a friendlier wording and specify
what concrete plans are you worried about and why?
It would also help to be more specific about various gEDA components, such as
being explicit about the file format, libgeda, gnetlist, gschem etc. instead of
mentioning "gEDA" or "toolkit" everywhere.
--
Ivan Stankovic, pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
- Raw text -