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=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=eWxkq8euk0UN2FNdL9uf3bXI2APKPZGkDRhwqRZHcMU=; b=KHDxWpQ7qhTJivYkzrX+JbrvVcaVc6+fnGYvxg1PSyXZvndHhgIGm+VIKNFWjBaIag qwdclQdHayrovM6weIjb8jh3jqroKuXaq39h/zAI28Q/+NP4kYh14c3RzcPLPzRj+OGs 7BbQMsgP1hMiBB+Dhz5xbNpm4JGHQ75Q3vv2JrHJRCL+OwajTzIpndxUJ6lm46UZs3gE m7lOPDTwRYMlDvg/pqoOhifH2oYtR43LGWxfrND5ffcNucaWRGWMeNQzO3G8RwMJSvWk Q0mu3SZTX13ac570Neav5n5TMyqL2nwzU2V6mXOeVcWQjWoJute0q8YJHH9s1yTBuSvZ bdhw== X-Received: by 10.25.138.198 with SMTP id m189mr7353940lfd.34.1451527919790; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:11:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:11:57 +0300 From: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: gEDA users mailing list Subject: Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user] Project leadership Message-ID: <20151231021157.GB19555@localhost.localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: gEDA users mailing list References: <8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8 AT noqsi DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) 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 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:24:59AM +0000, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:14 AM, John Doty wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 2015, at 9:54 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: > > > >> After actually hacing gschem, I realized your idealistic view on how good the foundations are is just a dream. > > > > It’s not perfect but that isn’t a reason to make it worse. It’s pretty good compared to a lot of software. > > Igor2 why are we doing this? Suppose for a minute we somehow got John > to concede defeat what would we really have won here? Because you're not sure if you're right or not. Because you're waiting another input. And I am not able to afford to state if you're right or not. Because I admit you're right in some things and John is right in some others. Because we need a more calm discussion. Cheers, Vladimir