delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2013/01/16/21:53:39

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] geda-skeleton-project: Lowering the cost of a starting a gEDA project
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201301170126.r0H1QVNO006895@envy.delorie.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:52:51 -0700
Message-Id: <90674A9C-F296-412F-A99C-372DDA7C70F0@noqsi.com>
References: <87wqvhd4tw DOT fsf AT gmail DOT com> <859D19F5-2072-408E-9632-324C2C943163 AT noqsi DOT com> <87bocrviz3 DOT fsf AT gmail DOT com> <40E88AEA-9556-40D5-9567-9DEFCAFFBCFA AT noqsi DOT com> <201301170126 DOT r0H1QVNO006895 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id r0H2qwQX005752
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:26 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
>> I don't consider it part of gEDA.
> 
> Note that the gEDA project does (and has for a long time) consider pcb
> to be part of gEDA.

But from where I sit, it appears that to a great extent pcb users (including you) simply took over the gEDA project, so this is not the statement of an unbiased observer or an unbiased process. I realize that pcb has some enthusiastic users and developers. That should not blind you to the fact that some of us have found pcb difficult. I suspect there are many more such people than you realize: they try it, give up, and go away, never realizing that pcb isn't a necessary component of a gEDA design flow.

>  What you're thinking of is gaf, not gEDA, which
> is just the schematic capture tools.

But pcb is logically a "friend" of gEDA, sharing neither conventions, file formats, nor code with the gEDA suite, but interoperable. So, that terminology is confusing.

>  Most gEDA users, certainly most
> *new* gEDA users, will use pcb for laying out their projects.

I suspect most aren't really aware that there are alternatives.

> 
>> The inflexibility of "pcb" . . .
> 
> Gee, thanks.  Was there a purpose to the rest of that paragraph?  I
> see nothing constructive in it at all.

Please control your emotions.

> 
> Ben wrote a tool that's designed to work with particular software
> packages, please don't complain that it doesn't support your favorate
> alternate packages - either appreciate what he's done or do it
> yourself.
> 

I appreciate Ales's care in the design of gEDA, which is the root of its flexibility. I, and people in my professional circles, find it much more usable than pcb. And there are many alternatives to pcb: every single PCB and ASIC I've designed in gEDA over a decade did not use pcb. My customers use whatever they choose for layout: I have no need to "do it myself". Shouldn't we emphasize to new gEDA users that they have this freedom?

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com



- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019