X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D27dV5rZGkaniysQUAeFxEjPlbbCNONvXrurgIrsSpk=; b=DJHoP8rgppupsyGldhTkSWRAgkaZ28Rtm4IYyfagK5WtBR7Q88xkH70zmt7NADVLbH CislPdLwLcGkekIUDtkOZOJjYVj67rBNpdARalT0s6dF8JUB2GqOtRiouFonn7BtVGaP rZeZ09F2i/Ld8qbUrxoP/D9FHZ+9CXfv7t1Xxa+e1tiQoJ9MB6bJjgt/3NCgOm90t6Mq W6heppzzKuYJU0wqy0OYoEKheFzDyvz3Y1h7vZ8TE4BzedPezDqxQ4btmg/QEDeUNICm +8FaTiAsjQpDNjX8HXXoY6Z/RKg6pw/KOrM12jtTHB4y7mEoCGz7lHTKfJomhzo6h9UX kHFw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.190.10 with SMTP id gm10mr19767453lbc.2.1435677969210; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5592ABB1.7090404@plastitar.com> References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <55902AB9 DOT 9000004 AT neurotica DOT com> <20150629113018 DOT GH19654 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <1435581145 DOT 1447 DOT 19 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150630083528 DOT GY19654 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <1435666431 DOT 676 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <5833A5F3-C17B-409D-A3B3-553F9DCFEAC5 AT noqsi DOT com> <5592ABB1 DOT 7090404 AT plastitar DOT com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:26:08 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t5UFQEQA006897 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 John Doty, From a workflow perspective it would help. The codes structure is a whole other bag of worms. DJ, You have added substantially to PCB but the issues we are citing were there far far before your involvement. I know you are not a fan of when people rip on PCB, I just want to be clear we are looking at it and not you. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:46 AM, P. Taylor wrote: > On 6/30/2015 10:19 AM, John Doty wrote: >> >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Evan Foss >> (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) wrote: >> >>> >John Doty : In the name of a more open workflow I was advocating PCB >>> >changing/adding TSV as an accepted input format for the other >>> >attributes I was suggesting. The idea being to break out of the >>> >workflow issues you see in PCB. >>> > >> >> Wouldn’t help in the least bit. The core issue with PCB is that it has no >> coherent model of what a PCB is: it’s just a grab bag of “features” with no >> foundation. > > > John, > > I always enjoy hearing your outspoken comments on geda/PCB. But isn't the > indeterminate nature of PCB a good thing? It's abstract _and_ it works for > practical physical design. And its easy to hack and hotwire for different > situations. > > The foundation is clearly there: it's the code and the file formats. It > works and that's why we like it. > > There are highly determinate commercial offerings. Yet PCB is the maximum > software attainable by a small number of uncoordinated programmers, > particularly when one considers that there are different desires and > philosophies constantly at odds. > > Phil Taylor > > > > > > > -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/