X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=4MyIIBC1m+U7xtYEiAW1Ci9I9Qz6dU7qveWjWpPGm7E=;
        b=QMYMUXV1a+Zwbx1tu9zLZ9bqRsneby6DmSYnAoUyaWBHfkbrZeCrRlybDifg4BHUgl
         9xJkPy7v37pVSNcTsiubKl0jYt1g4KYoTFd1UFESsHhvMT+bMHUz8qi72lT8Fj6lZZL7
         vrTluLuwUbWvm52/+q+4XJSXkJfbkEntVU5SA3GmXlhxmygazrHSQWUPWHy5UiBbK0ob
         hocnF0SNezVD51BMHBbyR5KnkCRfSK+2i8xVMUeINisrCJLMJ53dy9Q4uM5u1do39sLh
         MnUdnZocPoVohAxRSBhUYpfFJKPPjwwrPA3hLrsjBEWvv9AqYEDk32+em/+MI13j94Nr
         Qykg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D59D8F6D-0436-4A8D-AFC0-5124BD3031D6@jump-ing.de>
References: <CANqhZFxYH+Y5U1ai7ey-s+4nz6eYDM2vx3aMDb7WuigNXmi4AQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<2CB304B5-9587-4734-84E4-49F464744D11 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CANqhZFwPNG4R1dR2X0HB+tP1JzNXUAVg55gy54Lry5E49aAQ6Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<E9D200C7-475C-4CC7-A592-5A6C14B3EA25 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<6BF2E986-51EB-41E9-A4AD-8071CD00B1A1 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<834283D4-0891-486E-A981-2FF20B32C615 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<C3C35AF4-24D1-4977-9134-2C0B13473D01 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<54CAA7EE-7638-4B89-8197-111D0493F859 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<D59D8F6D-0436-4A8D-AFC0-5124BD3031D6 AT jump-ing DOT de>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:36:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAM2RGhSTmDhmVg5_pg_XrQDG2TFfoskAwODUvXsh2qqFVZ652g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf (Was gEDA/PCBs diversity, Was:
 Pin hole size)
From: Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
Precedence: bulk

"Modernizing" the user interface would break the tool for people like
me who are already using it.

If you what to help the project finish the doxygen documentation in
gEDA and start doing it on PCB. It is not as glamorous as the problems
of back annotation or 3D component modeling that seem to be recurring
topics here but it will help the project. It will also make the
project more alive and hence attractive to new developers who might
miss judge it as stale.

I don't mean to be rude but I don't see this discussion leading to
anything at the moment. If people are going to be typing let them type
documentation.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Markus Hitter <mah AT jump-ing DOT de> wrote:
>
> Am 27.10.2012 um 01:36 schrieb John Doty:
>
>
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Fritzing doesn't even try to be as detailed as gEDA. But Fritzing gets
>>> all the newbies, so in the end, Fritzing wins. Simple maths.
>>
>>
>> Why is that winning? As far as I'm concerned, the tool that gets the job
>> done wins.
>
>
> Fritzing wins, because those people doing their first projects with Fritzing
> will never even try with gEDA. And if they do, they'll run away the same
> minute, because they can't even rotate an item. That simple.
>
> And yes, I've seen that many times. gEDAs awkward user interface / mouse
> button mapping / inconsistent behaviour is about the biggest complaint I
> receive when asking people to participate in projects I maintain.
>
>> A fine example of the problem is LyX, ...
>
>
> And because LyX made a mistake you assume gEDA inevitably has to make the
> same mistake? For my part, I consider gEDA developers to be more
> intelligent. So far I'm proven right, for example the direct schematics
> import, which is a step of integration, works without hobbling script users.
>
>
>>> Who exactly is interested in the history of a tool? I use it today and I
>>> couldn't care less by whom and how it was used five years ago.
>>
>>
>> Well, I *do* care about that kind of consistency. Aerospace projects take
>> a long time, and I have a decade of gEDA schematics that I reuse.
>
>
> Again you do the assumption modernizing the user interface would make your
> older designs unusable. There's no reason for this assumption. The mapping
> of mouse buttons is 100% independent from the file format. The file format
> is also 100% independent from the size of the window used for viewing it or
> wether this window is shared for both, gschem and pcb.
>
>
>> It's less likely that a transcendental genius will appear who can
>> accomplish what I think you want step by step, fighting the architecture and
>> legacy flows all the way.
>
>
> Same as above. Assumptions without substance. Nobody is fighting working
> with legacy data.
>
> In fact, the introduction of holes in polygons has brought us compatibility
> with older file formats. Before, files were tagged with a 2010something
> version number, now designs without polygon holes are flagged with version
> 20070407.
>
> There you go. A new feature actually *increased* compatibility with legacy
> stuff.
>
>
>
> Markus
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
> http://www.jump-ing.de/
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/