X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=rcHMgTyH2ux650QMKQB7JM+k9oVP4wSCw1KGIrOa5Xs=; b=E3cxwlx6JGK562i6rDQKujwiAF9yIT268akIomJaJtv4ZGQ24Sj9grRdIudQoBKaqf R41DFD0k43R9FBmuBn3b9jfizfXfvTUsCV2IKo6rU3wEdTmt7OUzYVTVeBJxTcmxbboW VtbB5diBKX3MZaojtczXMMbcd10RUOcO/JoZk3NcTuEESdaB53Jk60GNqrlEdkLxx29e TGC8zUWz2IaTZpdDhiNRnCN3kXo6Pw1WAacss2zJpLHrdYVX0/Ybrf4FXOIRZpVuMM4S 5hgNxg3YtSpOJ+ZRr7AWP1RsN8dzkZcXW6urRBotuyeHfKyPwJ2lxxWmP0KGHRBih7NI 9IgA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmyHgHYTjj0ie/NV6DDogIBLxRV6c5W0wMD1CeTNUXZk0VvyPMDKLWkVfnbcYGEmQB8J1s5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.184.140 with SMTP id eu12mr25251703wjc.78.1435972178970; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150703030409.32398.qmail@stuge.se> References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:09:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? From: Biswajit Das To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacc2c0a29f8e051a0253ba 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 --047d7bacc2c0a29f8e051a0253ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 could anybody tell me how to install gEDA. I have instaled gEDA but netlist is not being transfer from schematic to pcb. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > Stefan Salewski wrote: > > maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is > > nearly death is wrong? > > Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite > strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around! > > The source code is there. Anyone who wants can pick it up and make a > change. Today, tomorrow, next month and next decade. > > Development happens when it happens. If you need it sooner you get to > do it yourself or pay for it to get done by someone else. You already > know that this is the premise. You must be able to take > responsibility for your own problems, otherwise you can not benefit > from open source and should acquire a support contract from a service > provider who might benefit from open source. > > > And using alive and dead as measure of volunteer efforts makes no > sense whatsoever. It implies that there exists a single threshold > where development moves from being alive to being dead and vice > versa. That is of course, as I wrote, utterly ridiculous. > > Development happens when someone makes a change. > > I have often experienced people who measure software project > development simply by change quantity, which I can completely > understand, because it is the most trivial metric, but it is also a > really useless metric, since number of changes say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING > about whether a codebase is improving or deteriorating. > > > //Peter > --047d7bacc2c0a29f8e051a0253ba Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
could anybody tell me how to install gEDA. I have instaled= gEDA but netlist is not being transfer from= schematic to pcb.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wro= te:
Stefan Salewski wrote:
> maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is
> nearly death is wrong?

Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite
strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around!

The source code is there. Anyone who wants can pick it up and make a
change. Today, tomorrow, next month and next decade.

Development happens when it happens. If you need it sooner you get to
do it yourself or pay for it to get done by someone else. You already
know that this is the premise. You must be able to take
responsibility for your own problems, otherwise you can not benefit
from open source and should acquire a support contract from a service
provider who might benefit from open source.


And using alive and dead as measure of volunteer efforts makes no
sense whatsoever. It implies that there exists a single threshold
where development moves from being alive to being dead and vice
versa. That is of course, as I wrote, utterly ridiculous.

Development happens when someone makes a change.

I have often experienced people who measure software project
development simply by change quantity, which I can completely
understand, because it is the most trivial metric, but it is also a
really useless metric, since number of changes say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
about whether a codebase is improving or deteriorating.


//Peter

--047d7bacc2c0a29f8e051a0253ba--