Re: gEDA-user: paid help?

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:25 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
>> I am just getting started and may say things that sound stupid.
> 
> Even something you think sounds stupid gives us some insight into how
> new users perceive our software :-)

One of the problems here is that the gschem GUI channels new users in a dysfunctional direction. Referencing library symbols is more often than not the wrong way to go. Embedding, sometimes given as an alternative, scales poorly, so it's only applicable to the smallest projects. 

A better way is to import every symbol you're using into your *project* (not just the schematic page you happen to be working on). One you have a project-local copy, the needed customizations are easy through Hierarchy->Down Symbol.

I keep a shell window open for this purpose. Use gschem to browse for a symbol similar to what I need, go to shell window and copy to project, hit the #$@% refresh button on the symbol browser, then pick it up from the project symbol directory. This isn't at all time consuming, and in the end saves a *lot* of time, but it sure isn't obvious to the beginner.

> 
>> I guess this leaves me with a question... Is geda meant for the
>> non-lazy high end user that roll's his/her own footprints?
> 
> It's a mix of both.  We *do* have libraries of symbols and footprints
> for many of the commonly needed parts.  People *still* often have to
> "roll their own" because we just don't have *every* part in our
> library.

Not just that: the symbols in the library are inevitably wrong in some way in light of the needs of a particular project flow.

> 
> Yes, we'd like our library to be more complete, but we've been
> discussing this problem for YEARS and have yet to come up with a
> workable solution.
> 
>> If so then if I paid for a few more then it would not really help as 
>> this is not the intended direction.
> 
> Hmmm... no, that's not right.  Intent has nothing to do with it, it's
> just not practical for us to have every part in our libraries.

Every part in every manufacturer's variant for every customer's documentation requirements using every design flow and every manufacturing flow...

A trillion symbols would not be sufficient.

> 
>> If the project does need more footprints then would it not be good
>> to come up with a viable solution to create them?
> 
> Sure.  Go ahead :-)
> 
>> For instance could someone sell a support package, i.e includes 50
>> footprints for X amount of money. These footprints would then become
>> open source and available to all, free as in beer. Would this
>> approach not bring more people to the project? or would it bring the
>> wrong kind of people?
> 
> I think this would be a great idea, if (1) you could find people
> willing to do that, (2) you could find people willing to pay for it,
> and (3) they could agree on a price.
> 
> But this has nothing to do with *our* desires, it's a free market -
> all it needs is two people willing to deal.  We already have
> gedasymbols.org where people can put freely usable symbols and
> footprints, I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone
> promoting their own services and rates on their gedasymbols page.
> 
> Perhaps what we need is a bounty system?  Someone posts an URL for a
> part's spec sheet and how much they're willing to pay.  Contenders
> post screenshots of the symbols and footprints they come up with, and
> one is chosen to get the bounty and submit their data files to the
> community.

The single most important thing is to fix gschem so that it doesn't lead users into the unproductive trap of referencing unmodified library symbols in designs. Then maybe we can escape from the delusion that what's primarily needed is a bigger library.

Don't get me wrong: I think publishing symbols is great. gedasymbols.org is a great resource, and indeed I have thrown a bunch of symbols into the pot there over the last few days. Starting with a symbol that's as close to what you need as possible is always best. But publishing symbols cannot solve the fundamental problem: "as close as possible" rarely means "exactly".

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user